What are the two best reasons to build a flooding domain boundary in a link-state network? (Choose two.)

Router-specific LSAs are already contained within their originating area by default in OSPF/IS-IS, so preventing router information leakage is not a distinct technical justification for creating a flooding boundary.

Area boundaries in link-state protocols such as OSPF and IS-IS allow ABRs or L1/L2 routers to summarize many specific prefixes into fewer aggregated prefixes, reducing LSDB size and SPF computation load across the broader domain.

A flooding domain boundary partitions the SPF tree into smaller per-area trees, which decreases SPF tree size and computational cost rather than increasing it.

Portions of the network with frequent topology changes cause constant LSA/LSP flooding and SPF recalculations; creating a flooding boundary confines those events to the unstable area and prevents them from destabilizing the rest of the network.

While areas do create administrative divisions, an administrative boundary alone is not a primary technical driver for flooding domain design; aggregation and topology stability isolation are the core motivations.