Question 650
An AWS network engineer must address this specific condition: A VPN attachment's route propagation is configured but its VPC attachment is associated with a route table lacking return routes. Which implementation or operational change BEST meets the requirement?
Explanation
Correct Answer
The propagated VPN prefix may exist in a different TGW table than the one used by the application VPC. Confirm the change by checking that traffic from AWS to the corporate prefix and back follows matching TGW route tables.
Incorrect Answers
An active VIF and BGP session do not automatically override VPC subnet forwarding decisions. The needed control instead targets tGW route-table associations determine which routing view is used when traffic enters each attachment; it succeeds when traffic from AWS to the corporate prefix and back follows matching TGW route tables.
Gateway attachments are route targets; incorrect associations can blackhole return flows despite healthy tunnels. That adjustment does not address the controlling condition: the propagated VPN prefix may exist in a different TGW table than the one used by the application VPC. Verify traffic from AWS to the corporate prefix and back follows matching TGW route tables.
A healthy VPN tunnel does not automatically install every required prefix into every TGW routing domain. The needed control instead targets tGW route-table associations determine which routing view is used when traffic enters each attachment; it succeeds when traffic from AWS to the corporate prefix and back follows matching TGW route tables.






AWS Certified Advanced Networking - Specialty ANS-C01 Practice Tests