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 harte-lyne.ca 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 Canada L8E 3C3
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 9:31 AM, James B. Byrne <byrnejb at harte-lyne.ca> wrote:> > 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 >If you were to use ip route syntax, I believe you could set a Metric so you have a floating default route out the 192.168.6.0/24 network. 192.168.6.0/24 via 192.168.6.1 metric 10 There may be a way (though not mentioned in the docs below) to accomplish the same thing using network/netmask syntax you used in your example. access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html/Deployment_Guide/s1-networkscripts-static-routes.html access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html/Deployment_Guide/sec-Configuring_Static_Routes_in_ifcfg_files.html access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html/Deployment_Guide/sec-networkscripts-static-routes-network-netmask-directives.html> >> > > > > 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. > >Agreed, no need for a route file. Just pull the gateway line from the ifcfg file for the internal network. ( I'm just posting the syntax/alternatives for anybody else's sake. )> > 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 harte-lyne.ca > 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 > Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 > Canada L8E 3C3 > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >-- ---~~.~~--- Mike // SilverTip257 //