in the same office, could not interact with workers from the other company using the network. We had to put access lists on the Ethernet interfaces to prevent interaction between the two networks. This design is an excellent example of politics and money trumping best-practice en- gineering. Still, our job was not to judge, but rather to make the network function the way the client wanted it to function. To further complicate the issue, employees were only supposed to use the Frame Relay link purchased by their respective companies. The problem with this mandate was that Chapter 14: Route Maps Company-1 user Company-1 10.109.0.0/24 DLCI 101 10.101.0.0/24 S0/0.109 DLCI 109 Branch #9 Frame relay DLCI 209 S0/0.209 10.201.0.0/24 DLCI 201 Company-2 10.209.0.0/24 Company-2 users Figure 14-1. Policy routing example each company's branch employees used servers at both companies' headquarters. In other words, if a Company 1 user at Branch #9 needed to use a server at Company 2 headquarters, that user was not allowed to use the link that connected Branch #9 to Company 2. Instead, he was to use the link provided by Company 1, SO that Company 1 could route (and attempt to secure) the request across the DS3 link between the two companies' headquarters. This needed to be done across more than 300 branches, of which were configured the same way. We were not allowed to add hardware. Here is the routing table from the Branch-9 router: Branch-9#sho ip route [ - text removed - ] 172.16.0.0/24 is subnetted, 2 subnets 172.16.201.0 is directly connected, Serial0/0.209 172.16.101.0 is directly connected, Serial0/0.109 10.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 4 subnets 10.109.0.0 is directly connected, FastEtherneto/a 10.101.0.0 [90/2172416] via 172.16.101.1, 00:16:02, Serial0/0.109 10.201.0.0 [90/2172416] via 172.16.201.1, 00:16:06, Serial0/0.209 10.209.0.0 is directly connected, FastEthernet1/0 As you can see, the routing protocol (EIGRP, in this case) is doing what it is designed to do. The network 10.101.0.0/24 is available through the shortest pa