Which two options must be part of your network design to support dynamic mutual redistribution between multiple OSPFv2 and IS-IS boundaries, to avoid suboptimal routing? (Choose two)

Matching OSPF external routes (Type E1/E2) alone does not provide a mechanism to prevent those routes from looping back through IS-IS and re-entering OSPF at another boundary without tagging and filtering logic.

Route aggregation can reduce table size but does not prevent routing loops or suboptimal routing caused by mutual redistribution at multiple points - it is an optional optimization, not a mandatory loop-prevention mechanism.

Route tagging marks redistributed routes with a numeric tag at the point of redistribution so that when they reach another boundary, a route-map can identify and block them from being redistributed back into their originating protocol domain, preventing routing loops.

Route filtering (using distribute-lists or route-maps with prefix-lists) is applied at redistribution points to explicitly block tagged or known external routes from re-entering the domain they originated from, preventing both loops and suboptimal path selection.

Disabling IS-IS wide metrics (TLV 135) would remove support for metrics greater than 63, reducing IS-IS metric range and actually harming routing decisions rather than preventing suboptimal routing.