When designing IP addressing for route summarization, which consideration is true?

Summarization requires component subnets to be topologically contiguous and aligned to a bit boundary, so applying it regardless of topology results in route leakage or black holes.

IP address assignments based on organizational divisions do not inherently produce contiguous, summarizable address blocks, and summarization must be driven by network topology rather than company structure.

When a summary route is advertised, it conceals the individual component prefixes and their precise locations, so a receiving router may forward traffic to a summarizing router that is not on the optimal path to the specific destination, resulting in suboptimal or asymmetric routing - this is a well-known trade-off that designers must account for.

In protocols like EIGRP and OSPF, summary route metrics are derived from the best metric among component routes and change as component routes fluctuate, so they are not constant.