Which two statements are design benefits of route summarization in a network? (Choose 2)

Summary routes do not carry a composite or user-defined single metric representing all component routes; the metric is typically derived from the best metric among component routes or a protocol-specific default, and this is not a design benefit.

When a specific route within a summarized range flaps, the summary advertisement itself remains stable and unchanged at the summarization boundary, so routers beyond that point do not trigger unnecessary SPF recalculations or routing table updates, improving network stability.

Route summarization consolidates multiple specific prefixes into a single aggregate entry in the routing tables of all routers beyond the summarization point, directly reducing the number of routing table entries and the memory required to store them.

Suppressing specific routes beyond the summarization boundary actually reduces routing granularity and path visibility - it does not enable traffic to use alternative paths and can instead prevent optimal path selection.

While OSPF inter-area summarization involves Type 3 LSAs, the change in LSA type is a protocol implementation detail, not a network design benefit of route summarization.