The idea behind all of these "router redundancy" protocols is you can have multiple physical routers cooperating to provide a reliable "virtual router" gateway IP address. The protocol itself runs between the routers, only. All the hosts (like the AFF A200) need to know is what the IP address of the virtual router/gateway is - just a configuration item when setting up the network LIFs.
What is your goal? L2 redundancy, L3 (router) redundancy or both?
To summarize from a L3 redundancy perspective... with these protocols, you have a virtual router IP address AND a virtual ethernet MAC address for this router. When one fails, the other takes over advertising the virtual IP and using gratuitous ARP requests to "teach" everyone the new location of the virtual MAC address.
As you currently describe it, the NetApp nodes will not have L2 redundancy. That's OK - but if the single link to the switch fails, or the switch itself completely fails (as opposed to the router interface not working or downstream paths not working), the connectivity will fail.
To configure L2 redundancy you'd dual-home the NetApp nodes to each switch, but you'd need a multi-switch link aggregation feature on the switch side. Extreme's MLAG feature, Cisco's VPC. The usual requirement on the edge/host/server/ONTAP side would be that the 2 ports are configured as a LACP (802.3ad) port-channel.