Am Sa, den 15.01.2005 schrieb Thomas E. Dukes um 18:43: > > And for what reason did you create that anyway? It is not > > necessary - at least I do not see any difference from letting > > the route being automatically made from the network scripts > > based on the data in the > > ifcfg-eth1 config file. So remote the static routes file. > > > OK, how do I do that? Why aren't the scripts doing it? I'm not sure I > understand. What do you not understand? I said delete the static-routes files. It is neither necessary, nor has a valid syntax. The route is set up by simply having a proper ifcfg-eth1 file, like: $ cat /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth1 # Intel Corp.|82557/8/9 [Ethernet Pro 100] DEVICE=eth1 ONBOOT=yes BOOTPROTO=static IPADDR=10.0.0.1 NETMASK=255.255.255.0 GATEWAY=10.0.0.254 HWADDR=00:D0:B7:D2:10:8E Alexander -- Alexander Dalloz | Enger, Germany | new address - new key: 0xB366A773 legal statement: http://www.uni-x.org/legal.html Fedora GNU/Linux Core 2 (Tettnang) on Athlon kernel 2.6.10-1.9_FC2smp Serendipity 18:52:19 up 1 day, 2:14, load average: 0.28, 0.34, 0.21
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
