Which two statements are correct about route redistribution? (Choose two.)

iBGP is used to carry full BGP path attributes - including AS_PATH, NEXT_HOP, MED, and communities - across the AS between eBGP-speaking edge routers, ensuring those attributes are not lost or truncated. Without iBGP, redistributing eBGP routes into an IGP would discard BGP-specific attributes that are essential for traffic engineering and policy enforcement across the AS.

The choice is truncated, but EIGRP's unequal cost multipath (variance) is an EIGRP-internal feature that is inherently lost upon redistribution into any other protocol - this is a limitation of redistribution, not a unique behavior specific to OSPF.

When two routing protocols are mutually redistributed at more than one boundary point, a route originating in domain A can be redistributed into domain B and then re-redistributed back into domain A, creating a loop because the route's origin is indistinguishable from locally learned routes. Administrative distance tuning or route tagging is required to prevent this condition.

Injecting the full Internet BGP routing table into OSPF is operationally infeasible because it floods hundreds of thousands of LSAs into the OSPF LSDB, causing excessive CPU, memory, and SPF recalculation overhead on all routers in the domain.

IS-IS does support controlled route leaking from Level 2 into Level 1 domains using explicit leaking policies, making this statement technically incorrect.