On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 16:28, Ashley M. Kirchner wrote: > Bret Hughes wrote: > > >yep. Not too scalable is it? > > > > > This is why I thought of just linking them through a HUB > instead...but I wasn't sure how the default network gw-ing was gonna > work. I'm still pondering. >
I believe that the ifup scripts will create a route for the subnet specified in /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth? just like it did for your one interface. It should not affect the default route at all as that is typically set at a higher level in /etc/sysconfig/network The default gateway is only used if the kernel cannot find a subnet corresponding to the ipaddress of an outging packet on one of the active interfaces. BTW you can also use route to set a gateway (other than the default) for a known subnet to a specific machine. I did that on our firewall box with the ipaddress pointing to our test lan so we can get to machines there from any machine on our primary lan. The gateway to the test lan is a dual homed machine on the private lan. It causes icmp redirect calles but it sure is easier than manually configuring all machines to see the route. > PS: Mozilla says your name is spelled wrong, Bert... <grin> Well, I guess that is better than Brat which I have also seen as suggested spelling. Bret -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
