The course outlines Multi-Site DR Option as Active/Standby. This is incorrect, as in this option we do route portion of the traffic to AWS and it’s an Active/Active Scenario based on Route 53 weighted routing.
I disagree with your assertion that Multi-Site DR is considered Active/Active. Multi-site DR as I explain in the video can either be actively accepting load or can be just resources waiting to accept load. Specifically I call out using Route 53 health checks to determine if we need to fail over. There is no requirement to have traffic going to multiple sites in order for an architecture to be considered multi-site and multi-site architectures are not automatically active/active.
I see Scott’s point in having a Multi-Site in active/standby in the real world. Especially if we are talking about just "multi-site architecture". But I do have to agree with vsreddykallur’s on this in the context of the certification and disaster recovery.
According to the AWS Disaster Recovery whitepaper they explicitly state that "A multi-site solution runs in AWS as well as on your existing on-site infrastructure, in an active-active configuration". It also states that it is generally achieved with Route 53 with weighted routing.
The Warm Standby is defined as active / standby, as in not-active-for-prod environment. That is then quickly scaled (preferably automatically and horizontally) to receive production loads, and that is then failovered with Route 53 health checks. Just like Scott goes over in the video.