Consider the exhibit.

Comprehensive and Detailed 150 to 250 words of Explanation From [SR Linux EVPN and Data Center Interconnect/Course Guide/topics]:

In asymmetric L3 EVPN routing, each participating PE must have the MAC-VRFs needed to forward traffic in the destination bridge domain. However, the specific exhibit describes two MAC-VRFs interconnected through IP-VRF3, with Leaf-1 hosting MAC-VRF1 and Leaf-2 hosting MAC-VRF2. The false statement is that Leaf-1 and Leaf-2 must both have instances of MAC-VRF1 and MAC-VRF2. That requirement is not true for this described deployment. Each local MAC-VRF connects to IP-VRF3 using an IRB interface, and host MAC/IP information is advertised using EVPN route type 2 so remote PEs can learn endpoint reachability. The question's answer also implies that IP prefix advertisement using route type 5 is part of the control-plane exchange between the leaves for the routed service context. What matters is that the fabric can resolve host and prefix reachability through EVPN without forcing every PE to instantiate every MAC-VRF in this topology. Option B overstates the MAC-VRF placement requirement and is therefore false. Reference: asymmetric L3 EVPN routing, RT-2 host advertisements, RT-5 IP prefix routes, IRB attachment.

================