Nate wrote on Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:21:48 -0700 (PDT):
any net 192.168.2.0 netmask 255.255.255.224 gw 192.168.2.3
in your /etc/sysconfig/static-routes file
yes, this works, thanks! I have found a better method without adding a route in the meantime, but I wanted to know about this, just in case.
Though I'm not sure why you'd want to have a static route that points to a local interface, just set the subnet of the interface to 255.255.255.224 and you don't need a static route.
That actually does not work. The net is set, of course, I think you would get an error if not. The case is a bit complicated. I want to reach a domU from another machine thru a crossover link and not via the switched network. For that purpose I added a private subnet to all involved NICs and to the domU. That works in one direction but not in the other direction. It also doesn't work from the dom0 itself. When I add this route it all works. Another solution is to use another private subnet for the third NIC in the machine. Originally, NIC2 and NIC3 had both an IP number from the same private subnet and NIC3 seems to have catched all the packets. And the whole thing was only necessary because of this: SUBJECT:[CentOS] eth0 killed when adding virtual interface and multipleNICs are present
I use that syntax and it works fine..
Indeed, but it's not in the manual :-( I had read about it in a few postings, but it seemed to be obsoleted. I think the route-interface syntax does not work because it all involves an interface. The route add and the static-routes don't specify an interface.
Kai