On Thu, February 19, 2015 12:33, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 9:48 AM, James B. Byrne
> <byrnejb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.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@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
