On Sat, 2008-03-01 at 20:23 +0200, Ahmed Kamal wrote: > I agree this setup looks weird or plain wrong to me > Yes, this does work if I add the route manually > And, no I'm not the cisco guy :) I'm the Linux guy. I will try talking > to the networking people to see if we can talk on a separate network > My suspicion is that you're eth1 interface should not be a /16 netmask, that's pretty unusual. It's more likely that the "network" interface is supposed to be /24 or even smaller and then the route to the 172.30.0.0/16 network should be via the router. That would be a far more "typical" setup.
Still, if it works when you add a manual route you should be able to make the startup scripts do the same thing but I'll admit I haven't tested it. Later, Tom _______________________________________________ rhelv5-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list
