How to Connect Two AWS VPCs to On-Premises Data Center with Least Operational Overhead?
A company deployed an application in two AWS Regions in one AWS account. The company has one VPC in each Region. The VPCs use non-overlapping private CIDR ranges. The company needs to connect both VPCs to a single on-premises data center to test the application. The application requires up to 800 Mbps of throughput. A network engineer needs to establish connectivity between the VPCs and the on-premises data center. Which solution will meet this requirement with the LEAST operational overhead?
Community Votes
71% of anonymous learners picked answer D. Votes are pick records left by other test-takers — they are not the verified answer.
Community Insight
The question tests understanding of 'least operational overhead' in AWS networking, where BGP dynamic routing eliminates manual static route management compared to static routing options.
This question tests the optimal AWS connectivity solution for connecting two VPCs to an on-premises data center for testing with 800 Mbps throughput and minimal operational overhead. The community consensus favors AWS Site-to-Site VPN with BGP routing over Direct Connect due to faster setup, dynamic routing, and lower operational overhead.
Many candidates choose Option C (Site-to-Site VPN with static routes) because static routes seem simpler initially, but they overlook that BGP provides automatic route propagation and eliminates ongoing manual route maintenance, resulting in lower operational overhead long-term.
Community Discussion (5 comments)
Comments & Corrections
No comments yet — spotted an error or have a note? Share it below.
Expert Analysis
Analysis of AWS Connectivity Options
The key requirements in this scenario are:
- Connect two VPCs to a single on-premises data center
- Support up to 800 Mbps throughput
- Least operational overhead
- Purpose is for testing the application
Why Option D is Correct
AWS Site-to-Site VPN with BGP routing meets all requirements with minimal operational overhead:
1. Throughput: AWS Site-to-Site VPN supports up to 1.25 Gbps per tunnel, easily handling the 800 Mbps requirement 2. BGP Dynamic Routing: Automatically propagates routes between VPCs and on-premises, eliminating manual route table updates 3. Quick Setup: No physical infrastructure provisioning required - can be configured in minutes 4. Cost-Effective: Ideal for testing scenarios where permanent Direct Connect isn't justified 5. Low Maintenance: BGP handles route changes automatically without manual intervention
Why Other Options Are Wrong
Options A and B (Direct Connect):
- Require ordering physical connections (weeks of lead time)
- Higher cost for testing scenarios
- More complex setup and ongoing management
- Option A uses static routes (higher operational overhead)
- Option B uses OSPF, which is not supported for AWS Direct Connect routing (BGP is required)
- Meets throughput requirements
- However, static routes require manual configuration and maintenance
- Any network changes require manual route table updates
- Higher operational overhead compared to BGP's automatic route propagation
Community Insights
As noted by community members, BGP provides "automatic route propagation" and "dynamic routing updates" which significantly reduce operational overhead. While static routes (Option C) might seem simpler initially, they create ongoing maintenance burden that violates the "least operational overhead" requirement.
Official Reference
Exam Strategy
When AWS questions mention 'least operational overhead,' prioritize solutions with automation features like BGP dynamic routing over manual configurations like static routes. Also consider the scenario context - 'testing' often indicates temporary solutions like VPN over permanent infrastructure like Direct Connect.
Related Analysis
Practice All ANS-C01 Questions
Access 137 questions with complete answers and detailed explanations.
View Full ANS-C01 Practice Test →