Refer to the exhibit. This OSPF network has just been deployed with four areas, but the hub-and- spoke area frequently flaps. You must fix this design failure. Which two reasons describe why the imple

ABR routers that perform summarization must compute and originate summary LSAs in addition to running SPF for their connected areas, which increases rather than decreases CPU utilization on those routers.

Improved scalability is a general network design benefit of summarization and does not specifically explain the mechanism by which summarization limits the reconvergence impact of hub-and-spoke instability.

Summarization at the ABR replaces the individual Type-1 and Type-2 LSAs from the hub-and-spoke area with a single Type-3 summary LSA, creating an isolation boundary so that link flaps within the hub-and-spoke area do not flood into the data center or campus areas.

When a spoke link flaps but the aggregate summary prefix remains reachable via other paths, the summary LSA does not change, so routers in the campus area receive no new LSA update and run at most a partial SPF rather than a full SPF triggered by each individual link change.

Reducing the count of advertised prefixes is a direct consequence of summarization, but this answer describes an outcome rather than the mechanism - LSA flooding isolation and bounded SPF scope - that explains why instability effects are minimized.