On 03/12/2015 03:51 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa.com> wrote: >> On Mar 12, 2015, at 11:52 AM, Jason Warr <jason at warr.net> wrote: >>> On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:43:27 -0500, Robert Moskowitz <rgm at htt-consult.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I found: >>>> >>>> http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/configuring-static-routes-in-debian-or-red-hat-linux-systems.html >>>> >>>> where it says to add to ifcfg-eth0: >>>> >>>> 192.168.128.0/17 via 40.53.24.3 >> That’s only for RHEL 7: http://goo.gl/AtjIyI > Aside from being irritating, that's just wrong. I'm using that > syntax on Centos5, AH, I think I see what I did wrong. I put that line in the ifcfg-eth0 when according to this page, it goes in the route-eth0 just like the old format. I will give that a try tomorrow... > >>> ADDRESS0=192.168.128.0 >>> NETMASK0=255.255.128.0 >>> GATEWAY0=40.53.24.3 >> This is the scheme used in prior versions of RHEL. > I think both types of syntax will work in all versions. The GUI tools > do the latter form. >