Two data centers are interconnected with redundant links and use addresses in the 172.16.0.0/16 range. They run iBGP between the data centers with a private ASN and an IGP. The company has one VPC in AWS and an existing Direct Connect from the first data center to a Direct Connect gateway using a private VIF; that connection advertises a summarized 172.16.0.0/16 route. A second summarized route will be advertised from the second data center via a different Direct Connect location. The requirement is to route traffic to and from AWS through the first Direct Connect path, using the second connection only as failover. Which approach satisfies this requirement?

The correct approach uses BGP local preference community tags to influence inbound traffic to the data centers from AWS, and local preference on the data center routers to influence outbound traffic to AWS. By setting a high local preference for the first data center's route advertisements to AWS and a low local preference for the second, AWS will prefer the first path. Similarly, configuring the second data center's router to prefer routes learned from the first data center over its direct AWS connection ensures outbound traffic also favors the primary path. Incorrect options: ASPATH prepending primarily influences inbound traffic to the data center but doesn't directly control outbound traffic preference from the data centers. Adding a second VIF on the first connection doesn't inherently create a failover mechanism for the second data center. Direct Connect Gateway preferences are not configurable in this manner for specific connections. AWS Region BGP community tags are for influencing routing within AWS regions, not for path preference between Direct Connect connections. ASPATH prepending alone doesn't address outbound traffic preference from the data centers.