Which of the following correctly characterizes Access Lists in routing configurations?

Access Lists are indeed simpler to configure compared to route maps, which makes this statement correct. Access Lists are designed to filter traffic based on defined criteria, such as source and destination IP addresses, protocols, and ports. This straightforward structure allows network administrators to quickly and easily set up access control rules without the added complexity that can come with route maps.

Route maps provide more granular control and flexibility for routing decisions, but this complexity often translates into a steeper learning curve and longer configuration times. When comparing the two, Access Lists serve as a more straightforward method for filtering and controlling network traffic based on simple parameters.

The other choices present different concepts about Access Lists that do not align with their fundamental purpose or capabilities. For example, policy-based routing also involves more complex rules and conditions that Access Lists alone cannot offer. Similarly, the ability to work with full prefixes versus sub-prefixes isn't a limitation of Access Lists; they can indeed handle subnets as well. Lastly, Access Lists use standard criteria for matching, rather than relying on complex numerical systems. Therefore, the simplicity of Access Lists makes them a valuable tool in a network engineer's toolkit, particularly for basic traffic filtering needs.