Which of the following actions could fix this issue?
Add an inbound rule to the security group associated with the logging server that allows requests from the web server.
Add an outbound rule to the security group associated with the web server that allows requests to the logging server.
Add a route to the route table associated with the subnet that hosts the logging server that targets the peering connection.
Add a route to the route table associated with the subnet that hosts the web server that targets the peering connection.
Explanations:
While adding an inbound rule to the logging server’s security group may seem beneficial, the issue is not with inbound traffic being blocked; the requests are accepted. The problem lies in the response not reaching the web server. Thus, this action does not address the root cause.
An outbound rule from the web server’s security group is not necessary in this scenario because the outbound rules are usually permissive by default. The web server is able to send requests; the issue is with receiving replies from the logging server. Therefore, this option does not resolve the problem.
Adding a route to the route table of the subnet hosting the logging server that targets the peering connection ensures that the logging server can send replies back to the web server through the correct path. This is crucial for enabling two-way communication between the VPCs.
Adding a route to the route table of the subnet hosting the web server does not resolve the issue, as the problem is with the logging server sending responses back. The route configuration needs to allow responses from the logging server back to the web server, which is addressed in option C.
It seems to me that the answer is:
Add a route to the route table associated with the subnet that hosts the logging server that targets the peering connection.