Direct Connect + VPN best of both

Direct Connect goes throught 1 Gbps, 10 Gbps or 100 Gbps and the VPN goes up to 1.25 Gbps. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/whitepapers/latest/aws-vpc-connectivity-options/aws-direct-connect-vpn.html

Ans A- Direct Connect because company needs consistent connection. As a back up, company wants cheaper solution so VPN Site to Site connection should be okay.

HA low latency + minimize cost + acceptable slow traffic if primary fails B: VPN tunnel will be slow C: 2 direct connect will be expensive D: Backup connection for what? A: Direct connect + VPN as a backup works

A highly available connection with consistent low latency = AWS Direct Connect Minimize costs and accept slower traffic if the primary connection fails = VPN connection

A is the right choice to save cost

Highly available connectivity using Direct Connect for consistent low latency and high throughput. Cost optimization by using a VPN as a slower, lower cost backup for when Direct Connect fails. Automatic failover to the VPN when Direct Connect fails.

A highly available connection with consistent low latency = AWS Direct Connect Minimize costs and accept slower traffic if the primary connection fails = VPN connection

Slower traffic when primary fails, so the backup plan needs a cheaper solution, and the primary requires high performance, so A.

Even though, there are a lots of variable affecting the cost of the connection, VPN connection is cheaper than the Direct Connect most of the time since VPN Connection doesn't require any dedicated physical circuit involved.

Option A is the right answer.

Options B and C propose using multiple VPN connections for private connectivity and as backups. While VPNs can serve as backups, they may not provide the same level of consistent low latency and high availability as Direct Connect connections. Additionally, provisioning multiple VPN tunnels can increase operational complexity and costs. Option D suggests using the Direct Connect failover attribute from the AWS CLI to automatically create a backup connection if the primary Direct Connect connection fails. While this approach can be automated, it does not provide the same level of immediate failover capabilities as having a separate backup connection in place. Therefore, option A, provisioning an AWS Direct Connect connection to a Region and provisioning a VPN connection as a backup, is the most suitable solution that meets the company's requirements for connectivity, cost-effectiveness, and high availability.

higly available - > direct connect beecause connection can go up to 10GBPs and VPN 1.5GBPs as backup

Option A is the correct solution to meet the requirements of the company. Provisioning an AWS Direct Connect connection to a Region will provide a private and dedicated connection with consistent low latency. As the company requires a highly available connection, a VPN connection can be provisioned as a backup if the primary Direct Connect connection fails. This approach will minimize costs and provide the required level of availability.

With AWS Direct Connect + VPN, you can combine AWS Direct Connect dedicated network connections with the Amazon VPC VPN. This solution combines the benefits of the end-to-end secure IPSec connection with low latency and increased bandwidth of the AWS Direct Connect to provide a more consistent network experience than internet-based VPN connections. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/whitepapers/latest/aws-vpc-connectivity-options/aws-direct-connect-vpn.html

Why not B? Two VPNs on different connections? Direct Connect costs a fortune?

DX for low latency connect and the company accept slower traffic if the primary connection fails. So we should choose VPN for backup purpose. And the question also mark : minimize cost.