During the meeting we discussed option #6 as the viable option. Reasoning: Closely modeled the ietf way of thinking Here it is in a broad outline: vrf <VRFNAME1> ip route … <---- Vrf specific Route router bgp XXX ! (address-family ipv4) network 1.2.3.0/24 route-map foo neighbor ... ! CE session redistribute ospf ! CE setup for OSPF ! no special parameters on redistribute needed; VRF name is already OK <here> - never RD/RT router ospf <INSTANCENUM> ! (is this under vrf config?) redistribute bgp ... router bgp AAA ! core instance address-family vpnv4 | vpnv6 | evpn Network <vpnv4> or <RT2/RT5> config [ rd <> ( could be used) ?] neighbor ... ! PE session vrf <VRFNAME1> rt {import|export|both} RTLIST rd {automatic|VALUE} network <> [<rd>] ! <- most used hopefully router bgp BBB ! core instance vrf <VRFNAME2> rt {import|export|both} RTLIST ! can have value overlap rd {automatic|VALUE} address-family vpnv4 | evpn Network <vpnv4> or <RT2/RT5> config neighbor ... ! PE session Questions asked: For VRF's would we extend this to MAC VRF's also? donald