The one thing is, if I understood well the near-end 7200 are conncted to the local switch and to the DS3 links.So the near-end 7200 are not connected back to back.
Having this in mind you should track the DS3 link or the existence of the lookback of the far end 7200 , in order to decrement the AVF priority. If not you will have a near-end 7200 as a black hole for some user's traffic in the case of link failure (DS3) or other.
- near-end 7200 looses the connection to the far-end 7200 ( DS3 link, or other equipment /link on the path )
but it will still be the AVF . As a solution I think you can track ip route existence of the far-end 7200's loopback, and using this track you should lower the priority. This way if it looses the connection to far end will not be AVF.
A better solution , i think , is to add a back to back interface between near end 7200, you will have a better redundancy.
My reason for the 2nd interface between near-end routers is GLBP. If for example near-gw looses the connection with far-gw , it will still be AVF - being the gateway for some clients - as far I understoood from your setup is that the only routes that near-gw will have - beside those connected - will be received from far-gw. In the case decribed , you will not have any routes, so the traffic will be droped on this router (near-gw)
You can also activate ospf , on the interface's toward the clients.
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...