DOP-C02 Resilient Cloud Solutions Practice Question

Answer analysis

Option-by-option breakdown

For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.

• ✗

  Use Route 53 weighted routing policy with equal weights for both regions.

  Why it's wrong here

  A weighted routing policy is intended only to distribute DNS responses among multiple records according to a specified weight ratio, e.g., 50/50 for equal weights. Weighted routing does not perform any endpoint health evaluation on the records themselves; it simply returns the selected record's IP even if that resource is down. In a DR scenario, this means clients would continue to be sent to a failed region half of the time, so it provides no automatic failover and does not meet the requirement.

• ✗

  Use Route 53 geolocation routing policy to route users based on their location.

  Why it's wrong here

  Geolocation routing makes a routing decision based solely on the geographic origin of the requester's IP address, not the current health or availability of the resources. Even if the record selected for a given user's region is unhealthy, Route 53 returns that record's answer and does not automatically fall back to a record in another location unless you deliberately configure a default record — and even that is not true health-based failover. The lack of a deterministic active/passive relationship between regions makes it inappropriate for this DR requirement.

• ✓

  Use Route 53 failover routing policy with primary and secondary records and health checks.

  Why this is correct

  Failover routing is the Route 53 policy explicitly designed for active-passive disaster recovery. It lets you mark one record (or record set within a group) as the primary and another as secondary, and associate each with a health check. Route 53 monitors the primary endpoint's health and, when the health check fails after the configured threshold, automatically returns the secondary record's answer for all DNS queries. This deterministic, health-driven promotion of the standby region matches the company's requirement for automatic failover.

• ✗

  Use Route 53 latency routing policy to route to the region with lowest latency.

  Why it's wrong here

  Latency routing selects the record with the lowest measured network latency between the user and the resource, which is not the same as choosing a healthy endpoint. If the lowest-latency region has failed and no health check is configured, Route 53 will return that region's record anyway; even when health checks are attached, latency routing simply ignores unhealthy records and picks the next-fastest one, which may still be a different region for different users. It therefore does not establish a fixed primary/secondary order and cannot provide the consistent active-passive failover behavior that the requirement calls for.

Go deeper

Related to this question