Which configuration should the solutions architect use to meet the company’s needs while minimizing changes and infrastructure overhead?
Point a Route 53 alias record to an Amazon CloudFront distribution with the ALB as one of its origins. Then, create custom error pages for the distribution.
Set up a Route 53 active-passive failover configuration. Direct traffic to a static error page hosted within an Amazon S3 bucket when Route 53 health checks determine that the ALB endpoint is unhealthy.
Update the Route 53 record to use a latency-based routing policy. Add the backup static error page hosted within an Amazon S3 bucket to the record so the traffic is sent to the most responsive endpoints.
Set up a Route 53 active-active configuration with the ALB and an Amazon EC2 instance hosting a static error page as endpoints. Route 53 will only send requests to the instance if the health checks fail for the ALB.
Explanations:
While using CloudFront can provide custom error pages, it introduces unnecessary complexity and doesn’t directly address the requirement of failing over to a static error page.
This option directly meets the requirement by using Route 53’s active-passive failover to redirect users to a static S3 error page when the ALB is unhealthy, minimizing infrastructure changes.
Latency-based routing does not fulfill the requirement of directing traffic to a backup error page in the case of unavailability of the primary site, as it focuses on latency instead of availability.
An active-active configuration is unnecessary and overly complex for the use case. It does not ensure a failover to a static error page; it relies on health checks, which is not the simplest solution for this scenario.
I reckon the answer is:
Set up a Route 53 active-passive failover configuration. Direct traffic to a static error page hosted within an Amazon S3 bucket when Route 53 health checks determine that the ALB endpoint is unhealthy.