Chris Kloiber wrote:
>On Mon, 2004-07-12 at 14:24, Ben Adams wrote:
>
>
>>I have a server that uses the system default gateway for the vast
>>majority of its traffic, but needs a different gateway for a handful of
>>specific hosts. I want to establish specific routes for these hosts,
>>which I would normally do from the command line like so:
>>
>> route add -host A.B.C.D gw X.X.X.X
>> route add -host E.F.G.H gw X.X.X.X
>> . . . etc . . .
>>
>>I could just tack these commands onto the end of rc.local (or some other
>>such hack), but I know there's got to be something more elegant.
>>
>>What's the proper place to list these routes so that they will be
>>applied to eth0 at boot?
>>
>>
>
>/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/routes-eth0
>
>ADDRESS0=192.168.0.0
>NETMASK0=255.255.255.0
>GATEWAY0=10.10.10.1
>ADDRESS1=...
>NETMASK1=...
>GATEWAY1=...
>
>It's not well documented, but you will see this if you read
>/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-routes
>
>
I've always used /etc/sysconfig/static-routes in the past, and it
still seems to work in RHEL-3. I can see the benefit of interface
specific static route designations for boxes with dial-up adapters,
but I'm not sure I want the added complexity for a typical server
with a single eth0 interface which is always up (and that would
cover about ... 100% ... of our server systems).
So, is the "static-routes" file now deprecated?
- Don
--
Taroon-list mailing list
Taroon-list redhat com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/taroon-list