CentOS

I've added a route into the and what I want to learn is why the routes are written in rc.local. which purpose or design is used for this. route s always written into rc.local.
route running when I restart server but if i run ( service network restart ) then route is not running added routes do not work then i run the systemctl start rc-local.service and route is running. this method is correct ? when the network is reset, I have to do this.
this method is correct for writing a permanent route. and what I want to learn is why the routes are written in rc.local. which purpose or design is used for this. routes always written into rc.local.

there is a structure like this on the system right now

No. You are mistaken.

If you have to add static routes locally, then use NetworkManager to modify the relevant connection's configuration.

can you show an example about use NetworkManager . do you have any idea why it is written in rc-local
thanks

And if you are not using NetworkManager then you still don't use rc.local to add routes. That's what /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/route-$interface and /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/rule-$interface are for.

derdertere wrote: ↑
2019/10/15 20:44:21
do you have any idea why it is written in rc-local

Yes, somebody is either <unprintable> or <unprintable>.

Code: Select all

man nmcli
man nmcli-examples
man nm-settings

Or more verbosely: https://access.redhat.com/documentation ... uide/index

An example (where router 10.20.30.254 is link-local to connection bridce-br0):

Code: Select all

nmcli con mod bridge-br0 +ipv4.routes "192.168.0.0/24  10.20.30.254"

CentOS

add route

add route

Re: add route

Re: add route

Re: add route

Re: add route