Using static routes to control eBGP peering, a R1 has 2 neighbors (R2 and R3). R2 and R3 have VRRP enabled and share a VIP. R1 has static routes for loopbacks on R2 and R3, with the VIP as the next-hop. Is this best practice? What is potential downfall of this architecture?
R1 will have to go through VRRP active router to reach the passive router's loopback.You have to use ebgp multihop command to increase TTL value in BGP open message.
Can you directlly point R2 and R3 to reach its loopback from R1.
more information is needed in order to have a better understanding of the scenario and what you are trying to do.
For the configuration of eBGP peering you have three options: disable connected check, eBGP multihop, or TTL Security Check.
The drawback of using a VIP as next-hop is that it will work depending of how FHRP is configured to handle failure scenarios.
By the way, you have another option here, without using loopbacks, and that would be a single peering session between R1 and the VIP address that share R2-R3.