A company is migrating its on-premises network from its data center in Virginia to its data center in New York. The AWS Direct Connect connections for the Virginia and New York data center locations…

Question

Options

• ACreate a new private VIF on the new Direct Connect hosted connection. Create a new Direct
• BCreate a new private VIF on the new Direct Connect hosted connection. Attach the new private
• CDuring a maintenance window, migrate the existing private VIF to the new Direct Connect hosted
• DDuring a maintenance window, delete the existing private VIF and create a new private VIF to the

• A
  11% (4)
• B
  62% (23)
• C
  22% (8)
• D
  5% (2)

Explanation

Explanation

Option B is correct because it follows a non-disruptive migration strategy: by creating a new private VIF on the new Direct Connect hosted connection and attaching it to the existing Direct Connect gateway before removing the old VIF, traffic can seamlessly shift to the new connection without a service interruption - the existing VIF remains active until the new one is fully functional and verified.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• Option A is likely incorrect because it involves creating a new Direct Connect gateway rather than reusing the existing one, which adds unnecessary complexity and would disrupt existing VPC associations, causing downtime.
• Option C is wrong because "migrating" an existing private VIF during a maintenance window implies a cutover with planned downtime, rather than a parallel build-and-switch approach.
• Option D is wrong because it explicitly deletes the existing VIF before the new one is operational, guaranteeing a period of complete connectivity loss.

Memory Tip: Think of this like a bridge replacement - you always build the new bridge before demolishing the old one. In AWS networking, always create-then-cutover, never delete-then-create, when minimizing downtime is the goal. The key phrase "LEAST downtime" should signal a parallel provisioning strategy.

No community discussion yet for this question.