> Vreme: 12/17/2011 05:43 AM, Mike Burger pi?e:
>> Hi, Matt.
>>
>> Sorry for the top post, but my iPad mail client seems averse to allowing
>> me to bottom post.
>>
>> Just wanted to take a moment to note that I believe you've got things a
>> little bit reversed.
>>
>> The use Of the route-ethX files and the "ip" command are the "newer"
>> method. Setting the NETMASK and ADDRESS in the ifcfg-ethX files has
>> always been and continues to be the norm. Having the GATEWAY field in
>> either the ifcfg-ethX files or in /etc/sysconofig/network is the older
>> way of setting the default route.
>>
>> You're right, though...it was certainly less flexible. ;-)
>>
>> On Dec 15, 2011, at 12:54 PM, Matt Garman<matthew.garman@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>
> No, you got it wrong,
>
> he was talking about that route-ethX, not ifcfg-ethX, supports NETMASK,
> ADDRESS, GATEWAY (in separate lines) format. I used it from 2006. You
> can add as much routes that way as you please:
>
> NETMASK0=
> ADDRESS0=
> GATEWAY0=
>
> NETMASK1=
> ADDRESS1=
> GATEWAY1=
>
> NETMASK2=
> ADDRESS2=
> GATEWAY2=
Although, thinking back, you've made a very similar point to mine:
That the standard of xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx/yy via zzz.zzz.zzz.zzz style of
entry, invoking the "ip" command, is still the "newer" way of doing it,
while the parameter-per-line method you noted above, just like putting the
data into the ifcfg-ethX and the network files, is an older way of doing
so.
--
Mike Burger
http://www.bubbanfriends.org
Visit the Dog Pound II BBS
telnet://dogpound2.citadel.org or http://dogpound2.citadel.org
To be notified of updates to the web site, visit:
https://www.bubbanfriends.org/mailman/listinfo/site-update
or send a blank email message to:
site-update-subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
