Summarization on routers A and C is the correct design because the requirement is to keep failures of the listed access networks from impacting the core while still supporting fast convergence in both access and core. Route summarization creates an aggregation boundary: more-specific access routes can flap behind the summary without causing the core to learn and withdraw every individual prefix. Cisco hierarchical routing design uses summarization at distribution or aggregation boundaries to reduce routing-table size, contain convergence events, and protect the core from access-layer instability. Adding another aggregation layer may be appropriate in some large designs, but it is not necessary when the question asks for the mechanism that stops specific prefix failures from impacting the core. Graceful restart protects forwarding during control-plane restart events, not ordinary access-prefix failures. FRR provides fast reroute for link or node failures but does not hide individual connected-network changes from the core. Summarizing at routers A and C directly addresses the stated networks and reduces the query, LSA, or update impact depending on the routing protocol used. Reference topics: route summarization, hierarchical routing, convergence containment, core protection, prefix aggregation.