On 03/12/2015 03:51 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Warren Young <wyml@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 12, 2015, at 11:52 AM, Jason Warr <jason@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:43:27 -0500, Robert Moskowitz <rgm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
