Amazon Web Services DOP-C02 Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

To achieve multi-Region high availability for a serverless API-based application, the architecture must be duplicated in the second Region and supported by a multi-Region data layer and appropriate DNS routing. Option A provides the required multi-Region data layer using DynamoDB global tables , which replicate data automatically and asynchronously between Regions. This allows reads and writes in either Region and prevents cross-Region latency bottlenecks.

Option C ensures that the compute components—API Gateway REST API and AWS Lambda functions—are deployed in both Regions. Each Region operates independently, providing true active-active redundancy and allowing Route 53 to route traffic directly to either Region without dependency on the other.

Option E selects Route 53 latency-based routing , which directs each user to the Region with the lowest round-trip latency. This meets the requirement to route traffic based on the Region providing the best response time rather than only providing active-passive failover.

Option D (failover routing) supports active-standby topologies, not active-active. Option B creates a global secondary index, which does not provide multi-Region replication. Option F (multivalue routing) distributes traffic randomly and does not account for latency or Region placement.

Thus, combining DynamoDB global tables, duplicated serverless architecture, and latency-based routing fully satisfies the requirements.

service catalog uses stacksets and can enforce tag and restrict resources AWS Customer case with tag enforcement And Youtube video showing how to restrict resources per user with portfolio

The correct answer is C.

Option A is incorrect because creating a new SCP that has two statements, one that allows access to the new range of IP addresses for all the S3 buckets and one that denies access to the old range of IP addresses for all the S3 buckets, is not a valid solution. SCPs are not resource-based policies, and they cannot specify the S3 buckets or the IP addresses as resources or conditions. SCPs can only control the actions that can be performed by the principals in the organization, not the access to specific resources. Moreover, setting a permissions boundary for the OrganizationAccountAccessRole role in the two OUs to deny access to the S3 buckets is not sufficient to revoke the permissions of the two OUs, as there might be other roles or users in those OUs that can still access the S3 buckets.

Option B is incorrect because creating a new SCP that has a statement that allows only the new range of IP addresses to access the S3 buckets is not a valid solution, for the same reason as option A. SCPs are not resource-based policies, and they cannot specify the S3 buckets or the IP addresses as resources or conditions. Creating another SCP that denies access to the S3 buckets and attaching it to the two OUs is also not a valid solution, as SCPs cannot specify the S3 buckets as resources either.

Option C is correct because it meets both requirements of changing the range of IP addresses that have permission to access the contents of the S3 buckets and revoking the permissions of two OUs in the company. On all the S3 buckets, configuring resource-based policies that allow only the new range of IP addresses to access the S3 buckets is a valid way to update the IP address ranges, as resource-based policies can specify both resources and conditions. Creating a new SCP that denies access to the S3 buckets and attaching it to the two OUs is also a valid way to revoke the permissions of those OUs, as SCPs can deny actions such as s3:PutObject or s3:GetObject on any resource.

Option D is incorrect because setting a permissions boundary for the OrganizationAccountAccessRole role in the two OUs to deny access to the S3 buckets is not sufficient to revoke the permissions of the two OUs, as there might be other roles or users in those OUs that can still access the S3 buckets. A permissions boundary is a policy that defines the maximum permissions that an IAM entity can have. However, it does not revoke any existing permissions that are granted by other policies.