Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

Amazon Exam ANS-C01 Topic 2 Question 18 Discussion

Actual exam question for Amazon's ANS-C01 exam
Question #: 18
Topic #: 2
[All ANS-C01 Questions]

A company is deploying third-party firewall appliances for traffic inspection and NAT capabilities in its VPC. The VPC is configured with private subnets and public subnets. The company needs to deploy the firewall appliances behind a load balancer.

Which architecture will meet these requirements MOST cost-effectively?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

Contribute your Thoughts:

Sunshine
24 days ago
Haha, yeah, the load balancer choices are definitely meant to trip people up. But I agree, option B seems like the way to go. It checks all the boxes - cost-effective, traffic inspection, and NAT capabilities. *laughs* Although, I do kind of wish we could just use a single firewall appliance and save even more money. Maybe I'll suggest that to the company, they'll probably love the idea!
upvoted 0 times
...
Marshall
25 days ago
Hmm, I was also considering option D with the Network Load Balancer, but I think you guys make a good point. The Gateway Load Balancer is probably a better fit since it's designed for this use case. And using the firewall's built-in NAT is a smart way to save on costs. *chuckles* I wonder if the exam writers are trying to trick us with all these load balancer options.
upvoted 0 times
...
Twila
26 days ago
I agree, option B does seem to be the most cost-effective approach. Having the firewall appliances handle the NAT internally is a nice way to streamline the architecture and avoid the additional cost of a NAT gateway. Plus, the Gateway Load Balancer is designed specifically for this kind of setup, so it makes a lot of sense.
upvoted 0 times
Maryann
5 days ago
Yes, option B it is for deploying the firewall appliances behind a load balancer.
upvoted 0 times
...
Shannan
7 days ago
I think we have a consensus on option B then.
upvoted 0 times
...
Raul
8 days ago
Definitely, the Gateway Load Balancer is designed for this kind of setup.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dannette
9 days ago
It's a good way to streamline the architecture and save costs.
upvoted 0 times
...
Joesph
10 days ago
Using a Gateway Load Balancer for this setup makes sense too.
upvoted 0 times
...
Salena
11 days ago
Agreed, having the firewall appliances handle the NAT internally is a smart move.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mona
12 days ago
Option B does sound like a cost-effective choice.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Laquita
27 days ago
Okay, let's think through this step-by-step. The key requirements here are cost-effectiveness, traffic inspection, and NAT capabilities. I'm leaning towards option B - the Gateway Load Balancer with the firewall appliances having two network interfaces, one in a private subnet and one in a public subnet. This way, we can leverage the firewall's built-in NAT functionality rather than using a separate NAT gateway, which could be more cost-effective.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel
az-700  pass4success  az-104  200-301  200-201  cissp  350-401  350-201  350-501  350-601  350-801  350-901  az-720  az-305  pl-300  

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /pass.php:70) in /pass.php on line 77