Nate wrote on Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:21:48 -0700 (PDT):
> any net 192.168.2.0 netmask 255.255.255.224 gw 192.168.2.3
>
> in your /etc/sysconfig/static-routes file
yes, this works, thanks! I have found a better method without adding a
route in the meantime, but I wanted to know about this, just in case.
>
> Though I'm not sure why you'd want to have a static
> route that points to a local interface, just set the
> subnet of the interface to 255.255.255.224 and you
> don't need a static route.
That actually does not work. The net is set, of course, I think you would
get an error if not. The case is a bit complicated. I want to reach a domU
from another machine thru a crossover link and not via the switched
network. For that purpose I added a private subnet to all involved NICs
and to the domU. That works in one direction but not in the other
direction. It also doesn't work from the dom0 itself. When I add this
route it all works. Another solution is to use another private subnet for
the third NIC in the machine. Originally, NIC2 and NIC3 had both an IP
number from the same private subnet and NIC3 seems to have catched all the
packets. And the whole thing was only necessary because of this:
SUBJECT: eth0 killed when adding virtual interface and
multipleNICs are present
>
> I use that syntax and it works fine..
Indeed, but it's not in the manual :-(
I had read about it in a few postings, but it seemed to be obsoleted.
I think the route-interface syntax does not work because it all involves
an interface. The route add and the static-routes don't specify an
interface.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
