Two recently merged companies are using EIGRP and RIP. Which two strategies can facilitate a smooth migration? (Choose two.)

Introducing a third routing protocol (OSPF) as an intermediary between EIGRP and RIP adds unnecessary complexity, additional redistribution points, and potential for routing loops.

Redistributing between RIP and EIGRP is technically possible but introduces risks of routing loops, suboptimal path selection, and the need for careful metric manipulation.

Enabling EIGRP on the acquired company's routers first and then decommissioning RIP provides a controlled, verifiable cutover that preserves routing continuity throughout the migration without requiring redistribution complexity.

EIGRP's administrative distance (default 90 for internal routes) can be selectively adjusted per route source, enabling engineers to migrate one site at a time by making EIGRP routes preferred over RIP routes (AD 120) in a controlled, incremental sequence.

Static routes are not scalable for complex enterprise networks with many destinations and would create a large administrative burden during and after the migration.