Topic 1 Question 232
A company needs to establish a connection from its on-premises data center to AWS. The company needs to connect all of its VPCs that are located in different AWS Regions with transitive routing capabilities between VPC networks. The company also must reduce network outbound traffic costs, increase bandwidth throughput, and provide a consistent network experience for end users.
Which solution will meet these requirements?
Create an AWS Site-to-Site VPN connection between the on-premises data center and a new central VPC. Create VPC peering connections that initiate from the central VPC to all other VPCs.
Create an AWS Direct Connect connection between the on-premises data center and AWS. Provision a transit VIF, and connect it to a Direct Connect gateway. Connect the Direct Connect gateway to all the other VPCs by using a transit gateway in each Region.
Create an AWS Site-to-Site VPN connection between the on-premises data center and a new central VPUse a transit gateway with dynamic routing. Connect the transit gateway to all other VPCs.
Create an AWS Direct Connect connection between the on-premises data center and AWS. Establish an AWS Site-to-Site VPN connection between all VPCs in each Region. Create VPC peering connections that initiate from the central VPC to all other VPCs.
ユーザの投票
コメント(11)
- 正解だと思う選択肢: B
direct connect + vpc = direct connect gw + TGW. so B
👍 3nexus20202023/06/22 - 正解だと思う選択肢: B
direct connect + vpc = direct connect gw + TGW. so B
👍 3SkyZeroZx2023/06/25 - 正解だと思う選択肢: B
In fact site to site VPN would be more affordable than deploying a Direct Connect leased line. However, AWS also wants to market their product by stating that there is a need to increase throughput (site to site only can achieve max of 1.25Gbps) and consistent user experience (AWS Direct Connect > Site-to-Site VPN) so B would be a better choice.
👍 3Pupu862023/11/23
シャッフルモード