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. >
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Robert Moskowitz <rgm at htt-consult.com> wrote:> >>>>> >>>>> 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... >Yes, I missed that part. You can put a default gateway in the ifcfg-xxxx file with GATEWAY= but if you have more than one NIC you should only have one GATEWAY= entry for the NIC facing that router, and any routes in a route-xxx file should be through a router where the next hop specified is reachable though the xxx-named interface. The routes are added as the interfaces are brought up and will fail if the gateway specified isn't reachable - as might happen if they need to go through an interface that isn't up yet. If you only have one interface you don't have to worry about that - the default GATEWAYcan be in ifcfg-eth0 and the static route(s) through a different router on the same subnet go in route-eth0. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
On 03/12/2015 04:12 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Robert Moskowitz <rgm at htt-consult.com> wrote: >>>>>> 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... >> > Yes, I missed that part. You can put a default gateway in the > ifcfg-xxxx file with GATEWAY= but if you have more than one NIC you > should only have one GATEWAY= entry for the NIC facing that router, > and any routes in a route-xxx file should be through a router where > the next hop specified is reachable though the xxx-named interface. > The routes are added as the interfaces are brought up and will fail if > the gateway specified isn't reachable - as might happen if they need > to go through an interface that isn't up yet. If you only have one > interface you don't have to worry about that - the default GATEWAY> can be in ifcfg-eth0 and the static route(s) through a different > router on the same subnet go in route-eth0. >What I really need to do is get RIP working on that router and get my servers to listen to RIP... One leap at a time!