On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 9:19 AM, James B. Byrne <byrnejb at harte-lyne.ca> wrote: > > On Wed, February 18, 2015 13:07, Les Mikesell wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:39 AM, James B. Byrne >> <byrnejb at harte-lyne.ca> wrote: >>> 2. How does one configure the routing table on network startup to >>> specifically detail the route particular addresses are supposed to >>> take? >>> >> >> Not exactly sure how routing works with aliases on the same interface >> but the first thing I would try is the same as you would use on >> different interfaces. That is, leave the 'GATEWAY=' on your >> internet-facing etho, but remove the entry from the private eth0:192. >> Then add a route-eth0:192 file containing the network(s) and >> gateway for the private side. The source address it picks should be >> the one appropriate to reach the next-hop router specified in your >> routes. >> > > I created a file called /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/route-eth0:192 > and in accordance with the instructions obtained at: > > https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html/Deployment_Guide/sec-networkscripts-static-routes-network-netmask-directives.html > > 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 You don't need an extra route for the range covered by your netmask. Your own interface can reach them directly and the route is implicit. I was assuming you had a more complicated private side with additional subnets behind the 192.168.6.1. If that is not the case, you don't need the route-* file at all or any GATEWAY mentioned for the private range. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com