I have had a similar issue and have done the following...
Use multiple next-hop addresses in the "set" portion of your route-map. For example, say Router-A has a WAN connection to both Router-B and Router-C. The link between Router-A and Router-B is using IP subnet 192.168.0.0/30 where Router-A is 192.168.0.1 and Router-B is 192.168.0.2. The link between Router-A and Router-C is using IP subnet 192.168.0.4/30 where Router-A is 192.168.0.5 and Router-C is 192.168.0.6. You can configure the "set" portion of your route-map in Router-A to point to Router-B then Router-C using the statement 'set ip next-hop 192.168.0.2 192.168.0.6'. This way the desired traffic will traverse the link between Router-A and Router-B if that link is up or the link between Router-A and Router-C if the other link is down.
Hope this helps. If not let me know as there is another alternative if you need to re-route WAN traffic from Router-A based on the state of WAN links on Routers B and C.
Thanks very much for your help. I didn't know you could set 2 different next hops on the set commande. I will test this in the lab. I guess the other solution you are referring to is based on a GRE tunnel.
My other solution is not based on a GRE tunnel though Cisco recommended that as a possible solution. It is based on passing routing updates across a link that will bring the packet back to the originating router if the WAN links on the target router are down.
Do you have any configuration examples/information on the GRE tunnel alternative?
We are pleased to announce availability of Beta software for 16.6.3. 16.6.3 will be the second rebuild on the 16.6 release train targeted towards Catalyst 9500/9400/9300/3850/3650 switching platforms. We are looking for early feedback from custome...