A company is migrating an application from on premises to AWS. The company will host the application on Amazon EC2 instances that are deployed in a single VPC. During the migration period, DNS…

Question

Options

• ASet up an AWS Site-to-Site VPN connection between on premises and AWS. Deploy an Amazon
• BSet up an AWS Direct Connect connection with a private VIF. Deploy an Amazon Route 53
• CSet up an AWS Client VPN connection between on premises and AWS. Deploy an Amazon
• DSet up an AWS Direct Connect connection with a public VIF. Deploy an Amazon Route 53

• A
  80% (24)
• B
  7% (2)
• C
  10% (3)
• D
  3% (1)

Explanation

Explanation

Option A is correct because AWS Site-to-Site VPN is the simplest and fastest way to establish connectivity between on-premises and AWS for a temporary, time-limited use case, and pairing it with Amazon Route 53 Resolver (inbound/outbound endpoints) allows EC2 instances to resolve on-premises DNS names with minimal configuration - once the 3-month period ends, the VPN and resolver rules can be easily removed.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• Options B and D (Direct Connect) involve provisioning a dedicated physical circuit, which takes weeks to set up, is significantly more expensive, and is overkill for a temporary 3-month migration - the question emphasizes least configuration.
• Option C (Client VPN) is designed for individual user/client devices connecting to AWS, not for site-to-site connectivity between an entire on-premises network and AWS - it is the wrong tool for this architecture.

Memory Tip: Think "VPN = Quick & Temporary, Direct Connect = Long-term & Heavy Lifting." Whenever an exam question stresses a short duration with least configuration, Site-to-Site VPN + Route 53 Resolver is almost always the right combination. Remember: Client VPN = people, Site-to-Site VPN = networks.

No community discussion yet for this question.