> Hmm.  From man route:
>
>  The keyword default can be used as the destination to set up a default
 [...]
> Wonder what would happen if you ditched the specific route to
> 66.136.7.254 (the one with the MAC) and added a default route using
 [...]
> route add default -interface 66.136.7.249
> route add -net 66.136.7.248 -netmask 255.255.255.248 -interface 66.136.7.250

I was looking for something like that, but couldn't find anything that
worked on my own.  I tried your suggestion and it didn't seem to have much
of an effect.  (Same results as before, as near as I could tell: All
packets for *anything* in my subnet (LAN or ISP's gateway) went out on a
single interface.)


> I really haven't a clue as to whether this'll work or if the route commands
> are
> even well-formed.  I've had some interesting tussles with route in the past.

They were well-formed, I guess.  route didn't spit at me.  (^&


> But before you go buying more parts...

Heh, thanks.

At this point, I have something that works (just plug the DSL modem into
my hub's uplink and pretend that the ISP's gateway is one of my home
machines---one that I unfortunately can't access and reconfigure).

Now I'm looking for a refinement that doesn't push LAN traffic over the
DSL modem gratuitously.  If I can manage that, I'll sort out security
without a firewall and color myself happy.  (^&  I'd like to avoid
spending more than about $50 on further hardware (preferably more like
$15, or even $0).


  ``I probably don't know what I'm talking about.'' --rauch@math.rice.edu