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 40.53.24.3That?s only for RHEL 7: http://goo.gl/AtjIyI> ADDRESS0=192.168.128.0 > NETMASK0=255.255.128.0 > GATEWAY0=40.53.24.3This is the scheme used in prior versions of RHEL.
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 14:25:52 -0500, Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa.com> wrote:> >> 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.Are you saying this should not work in RHEL/Cent 7? It works fine for me in 5/6/7.> _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
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/AtjIyIAside from being irritating, that's just wrong. I'm using that syntax on Centos5,>> 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. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
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. >