My professor wants some more edit to this
I see in a couple of sections where you've made some improvements but not a significant amount. You've also not done anything to adjust for my feedback on item 10 which as I indicated is quite important. Please reach out if you want to discuss this in more detail.
3. Routing Protocol Choice: No change in this section, you have yet to choose and defend a specific routing protocol for use in Boston.
4. Peerlinks: Again, no significant change I can see that you've added information about CHAP and PPP but that isn't part of this assignment (yet) and not what I asked for in the last set of feedback.
5. Advertisements: No significant change in this section. Still looking for a decided protocol with network statements and peer advertisement authentication.
6. Summarization: Again, you've yet to choose and implement a routing protocol for Boston following the feedback I gave in the last submission.
7: Default Route: Half credit here, you've tried to get default routing going but you've used ASA syntax for the route command which wouldn't work on any of the Boston devices. I recommend trying another way
8. Topology: Good, you've provided the table that I'm looking for in element four but only included your new link. Giving you credit here for implementing and showing this recommendation.
9. Overall Formatting: No significant changes to the discussion sections,
10. Sources Cited: Per my feedback last time, I'm not sure how you're coming up with these commands but you have a lot of sources in these commands that are not in your works cited.
you started out strong with Worchester but missed Boston entirely. I've provided really detailed feedback below to help you get back on the right track. Pay close attention to my feedback on item number 10, do not use images of the configurations in your next submission please.
1. Worchester Subnet: Great, you have a well put together table and it includes all the required information from the assignment instructions.
2. Subnet Design: Awesome, this is a good design choice and you're right about why you might chose to go this way. Considering that you have access to the entire /16 you can easily use a /24 to break out the subnets. You might consider having the third octet match the VLAN number to make troubleshooting between layers two and three a bit easier.
3. Routing Protocol Choice: This section is interesting, I worry that you missed the point of the assignment for Boston. I'm looking here for you to chose an IGP solution and implement it. It seems like you have selected a bit of all three of the common IPv4 IGPs. For full credit, select one and justify your selection.
4. Peerlinks: In this section, I'm looking to see how you've documented your peerlinks. I'm not going to be particular about how you do this but I would need to see the addresses, subnet masks, and next hops of all three routers peer links in some easily understandable format.
5. Advertisements: I'm looking for two things in this section. I'm looking for you to provide correct network statements for each of the three Boston routers in your chosen IGP. I'm also looking for you to authenticate peer advertisements. Looking at your EIGRP section you've included the same network statement for all three routers which will ensure that traffic routes incorrectly for R2 and R3. Pay careful attention to the downstream networks on R2 and R3.
6. Summarization: I started to provide feedback on this above, but I'm looking here for you to correctly summarize each of the three Boston routers. R1 should be a summary of the entire /16 (which you got right) but R2 and R3 should summarize in such a way that it reflects the downstream networks only. Word of caution on using RIPv2, it is only a good choice in very specialized circumstances.
7: Default Route: In this section I'm interested in how you will route traffic outside of the network. For each of the three Boston routers, they should have a default route in their routing table. You can do this manually or using your IGP.
8. Topology: Half credit on this one, you've taken a stab at this with the packet tracer diagram of Worchester and part of Boston. For full credit show me both Boston and Worchester and focus on what topology improvements might be made to Boston to strengthen the network.
9. Overall Formatting: Half credit on this item. You have a reasonably professional look to the document but syntactically there are issues here. Try reading the document out loud or to another person and you'll see that conversationally it is difficult to understand your discussion sections. I'm not looking for you to be an English major on this but I'd like for the document to be easy to understand and comprehend when read.
10. Sources Cited: Half credit, you have followed IEEE styling in your works cited page and in the internal citations but you have a source 11 in the images, you never cite source 3, and your fourth source almost seems like a joke to make sure that I'm reading this thoroughly. Be extremely careful with these images, of the configurations. With the  I'm inclined to believe that you might have taken this from some other source material. Since you've not received any credit on these Boston routing sections I'm not going to make an issue of this but in your next submission please do not use images of the configurations.