On Thu, February 19, 2015 12:33, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 9:48 AM, James B. Byrne > <byrnejb at harte-lyne.ca> wrote: >> >>> I added these directives to the route-eth0:192 file: >>> >>> ADDRESS0=192.168.6.9 >>> NETMASK0=255.255.255.0 >>> GATEWAY0=192.168.6.1 >>> >> >> Which should have been: >> >> ADDRESS0=192.168.6.0 >> >> NETMASK0=255.255.255.0 >> GATEWAY0=192.168.6.1 >> > > But it still doesn't matter. Your netmask in the ifcfg- file already > covers that range and you don't need another route/GATEWAY for it. > You don't need the route- file at all. Thank you. I was grasping at straws in this case to solve a strange routing problem that turned out to be a misconfigured gateway firewall. It was a very odd error because it only affected one of our off-site net-blocks. So tracking it down cause a little more hair-pulling than usual. Fixed for now. -- *** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** James B. Byrne mailto:ByrneJB at Harte-Lyne.ca Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 Canada L8E 3C3