Check the attachment to see if this setup looks valid.
You have a connection to a business partner. You're router connects to the business partners router, both your routers interface and the business partners router interface are on the same subnet as should be. This same subnet/network the interfaces are part of is the subnet you are routing to on the business partners side. Does this look like a valid configuration. You are going to be redistributing the static route into you table (EIGRP), the vendor will be just using static routes. My questioning this is the way I have usually set this up is to use like a /30 on the p-to-p interfaces with a separate network routing to that is not in the same subnet as the interfaces.
"Thanks so as long as the person who has control of router R2 sets the static and as long as the R1 side has 192.168.255.0 0.0.0.127 (where the fa0/0 is 192.168.255.129/25) under it's EIGRP process traffic would arp out?"
Kind of. R1 arping out has nothing to do with whether there is a 192.168.255.128 (note .128 not .0) entry under the EIGRP process. R1 will arp out because 192.168.255.128 is locally connected.
The entry under the EIGRP process is only needed if there are other routers behind R1 that need to know about the 192.168.255.128 network. If there aren;t any routers then you don't need to run EIGRP on R1 at all.
Bear in mind also that in addition to the static route on R2 you also need all the NAT configuration for the hosts on the 220.127.116.11/8 network.