Which three statements are correct for route filtering? (Choose three.)

OSPF Type 1 router LSAs describe intra-area links and are flooded throughout the area without route-map filtering support - only Type 3 summary LSAs can be filtered at area border routers using the OSPF area filter-list command, not route maps applied to router LSAs.

Filtering specific prefixes forces traffic destined for those networks to use alternate, longer paths or a default route, increasing end-to-end latency and producing suboptimal routing compared to what the unfiltered topology would allow.

When inbound route filtering suppresses prefixes on a router, that router lacks those destinations in its forwarding table and makes different outbound forwarding decisions - often via a less optimal next hop or default route - directly influencing the outbound traffic path for those destinations.

EIGRP is a distance-vector protocol that advertises computed metric distances to neighbors but does not share the contents of its topology table; each router independently runs the DUAL algorithm using only advertised successor and feasible successor distances, meaning full internal topology details are not propagated beyond each hop.

IS-IS does not filter reachability from Level 1 to Level 2 by default; Level 1/Level 2 routers automatically redistribute L1 prefix information up into the L2 backbone to ensure inter-area reachability.

EIGRP does not filter reachability information at every hop - route prefixes are propagated throughout the entire EIGRP domain to all routers, whereas only the internal topology table entries are withheld, which is the behavior accurately described by option D.