Given , Andy Burns
wrote:

get rid of the ".." it should just be "."

Aurgh. I used regular expressions to create the commands and I didn't even
notice the typo! I repeated that typo across all the lines so it didn't
dawn on me that it was a typo in the middle of the line. slaps head

Fixing the typo brings me this (which Char Jackson also responded to)
route -p add 23.215.102.64 mask 255.255.255.255 192.168.1.254
OK!

Woo hoo!

route print
Network Destination Netmask Gateway Interface Metric
0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.69 276
23.215.102.64 255.255.255.255 192.168.1.254 192.168.1.69 21
........

I'm looking up now how to decode that "route print" but my first pass is
that any time the computer wants to get to 23.215.102.64, it will have a
metric of 21 when the binary 23.215.102.64 is "anded" with all 1s, which
just gets us the binary 23.215.102.64 back which is then sent to the
"gateway" of 192.168.1.254, which, from what Char Jackson said, might as
well be 127.0.0.1 becuase it doesn't exist.

Well, 127.0.0.1 actually exists so I wonder what the difference is between
route -p add 23.215.102.64 mask 255.255.255.255 192.168.1.254
route -p add 23.215.102.64 mask 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1

Would both work to eliminate the chance of a route going outside?