All SAA-C03 Test Inside Amazon Web Services Questions

Option A is the best answer because it introduces both decoupling and horizontal scalability with minimal infrastructure management. API Gateway provides a managed front door for the microservices, Lambda provides serverless compute that scales with request volume, and SQS provides durable buffering between transactional stages such as order creation and payment processing. AWS recommends queue-based decoupling when producers and consumers operate at different speeds or when spikes must be absorbed without losing work. The EKS and EC2 alternatives add significantly more operational burden, and caching does not solve the core workflow-scaling issue. Therefore, a serverless microservices architecture using API Gateway, Lambda, and SQS is the best fit.

============

The design already uses one transit gateway (TGW) per Region and inter-Region TGW peering, which addresses the multi-Region AWS-side routing. The remaining requirement is to extend on-premises connectivity over Direct Connect so that on-premises networks can reach VPCs attached to the TGWs across all three Regions. The most operationally efficient and scalable approach is to use AWS Direct Connect Gateway (DXGW) with a transit virtual interface (transit VIF) and then associate the Regional transit gateways to that DXGW.

Option C is purpose-built for this: a transit VIF is specifically used to connect a Direct Connect connection to a Direct Connect gateway, and a DXGW can then be associated to multiple transit gateways (and can be used across Regions), enabling centralized connectivity from on-premises to TGW-connected VPCs. With TGW attachments and TGW route tables, you can propagate and control routes across many VPCs and accounts, which fits the “50 accounts, thousands of VPCs” scale. Inter-Region TGW peering then allows on-premises routes learned via the DXGW/TGW in one Region to reach workloads in the other Regions through the TGW peering relationships, subject to routing configuration.

Option A is too limited and not scalable because it ties Direct Connect to a virtual private gateway (VGW) associated with a single VPC, which does not meet the multi-VPC, multi-account hub-and-spoke requirement. Option B incorrectly suggests associating a DXGW with a VGW “in each VPC” (VGW is per VPC and would not scale well here, and it doesn’t integrate with the TGW hub design you’ve already built). Option D is not the intended pattern: Site-to-Site VPN and public VIF do not replace the DXGW + transit VIF architecture for large-scale TGW-based private routing.

The correct answer isBbecause the company wants to view bothAmazon EKS clustersandon-premises Kubernetes clustersfrom acentral locationwith theleast operational overhead.Amazon EKS Connectoris designed for this purpose. It allows externally managed Kubernetes clusters, including on-premises clusters, to be registered to AWS so they can be viewed in theAmazon EKS consolealongside native EKS clusters. This creates a centralized management experience without requiring the company to migrate or rebuild the existing on-premises clusters.

EKS Connector is a low-overhead solution because it extends visibility into Kubernetes environments that are not running directly on Amazon EKS. It provides centralized cluster registration and observability at the AWS management layer while preserving the existing cluster deployments. This is especially useful for hybrid Kubernetes environments where organizations want a single control point for inventory and visibility.

Option A is incorrect becauseAmazon CloudWatch Container Insightsis primarily for metrics, logs, and performance monitoring. Although it provides observability, it is not the primary service for centrally registering and viewing clusters themselves in a unified cluster-management context. Option C is incorrect becauseAWS Systems Manageris not the main service for centralized Kubernetes cluster management. Option D is incorrect becauseAmazon EKS Anywhereis used to run Kubernetes on-premises, but it is not the simplest way to centrally view existing clusters with the least operational effort.

AWS guidance for hybrid Kubernetes visibility recommendsAmazon EKS Connectorfor connecting external Kubernetes clusters to AWS. Therefore, it is the most appropriate solution.

Security groups are stateful, but they cannot explicitly deny traffic — only allow.

Network ACLs are stateless and support explicit deny rules.To prevent Application A from sending traffic to Application B, configure a deny outbound rule in the network ACL of Application A’s subnet to block traffic to Application B’s subnet.

“Unlike security groups, network ACLs support both allow and deny rules, enabling you to explicitly block traffic.”

— Network ACLs

This is the correct method to block outbound traffic between subnets.