DOP-C02 Exam Dumps : AWS Certified DevOps Engineer - Professional

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.

To meet the requirements of migrating its on-premises Windows and Linux applications to AWS and creating a pilot light DR environment in another AWS Region, the company should use Amazon FSx for NetApp ONTAP for the application storage. Amazon FSx for NetApp ONTAP is a fully managed service that provides highly reliable, scalable, high-performing, and feature-rich file storage built on NetApp’s popular ONTAP file system. FSx for ONTAP supports multiple protocols, including SMB for Windows and NFS for Linux, so the company can access the shared storage from both types of applications. FSx for ONTAP also supports NetApp SnapMirror replication, which enables the company to replicate the storage to the DR Region. NetApp SnapMirror replication is efficient, secure, and incremental, and it preserves the data deduplication and compression benefits of FSx for ONTAP. The company can use automation to launch and configure the EC2 instances in the DR Region and then use NetApp SnapMirror to restore the data from the primary Region.

The other options are not correct because they do not meet the requirements or follow best practices. Using Amazon S3 for the application storage is not a good option because S3 is an object storage service that does not support SMB or NFS protocols natively. The company would need to use additional services or software to mount S3 buckets as file systems, which would add complexity and cost. Using Amazon EBS for the application storage is also not a good option because EBS is a block storage service that does not support SMB or NFS protocols natively. The company would need to set up and manage file servers on EC2 instances to provide shared access to the EBS volumes, which would add overhead and maintenance. Using a Volume Gateway in AWS Storage Gateway for the application storage is not a valid option because Volume Gateway does not support SMB protocol. Volume Gateway only supports iSCSI protocol, which means that only Linux applications can access the shared storage.

1: What is Amazon FSx for NetApp ONTAP? - FSx for ONTAP

2: Amazon FSx for NetApp ONTAP

3: Amazon FSx for NetApp ONTAP | NetApp

4: AWS Announces General Availability of Amazon FSx for NetApp ONTAP

Replicating Data with NetApp SnapMirror - FSx for ONTAP

What Is Amazon S3? - Amazon Simple Storage Service

What Is Amazon Elastic Block Store (Amazon EBS)? - Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud

What Is AWS Storage Gateway? - AWS Storage Gateway

To meet the requirements of failover and disaster recovery, the company should use the following deployment strategies:

Create an Amazon Aurora global database in two AWS Regions as the data store. In the event of a failure, promote the secondary Region to the primary for the application. Update the application to use the Aurora cluster endpoint in the secondary Region. This strategy can provide a low RPO and RTO for the data, as Aurora global database replicates data with minimal latency across Regions and allows fast and easy failover12. The company can use the Amazon Aurora cluster endpoint to connect to the current primary DB cluster without needing to change any application code1.

Set up the application in two AWS Regions. Configure AWS Global Accelerator to point to Application Load Balancers (ALBs) in both Regions. Add both ALBs to a single endpoint group. Use health checks and Auto Scaling groups in each Region. This strategy can provide high availability and performance for the application, as AWS Global Accelerator uses the AWS global network to route traffic to the closest healthy endpoint3. The company can also use static IP addresses that are assigned by Global Accelerator as a fixed entry point for their application1. By using health checks and Auto Scaling groups, the company can ensure that their application can scale up or down based on demand and handle any instance failures4.

The other options are incorrect because:

Creating an Amazon Aurora Single-AZ cluster in multiple AWS Regions as the data store would not provide a fast failover or disaster recovery solution, as the company would need to manually restore data from backups or snapshots in another Region in case of a failure.

Creating an Amazon Aurora cluster in multiple AWS Regions as the data store and using a Network Load Balancer to balance the database traffic in different Regions would not work, as Network Load Balancers do not support cross-Region routing. Moreover, this strategy would not provide a consistent view of the data across Regions, as Aurora clusters do not replicate data automatically between Regions unless they are part of a global database.

Setting up the application in two AWS Regions and using Amazon Route 53 failover routing that points to Application Load Balancers in both Regions would not provide a low RTO, as Route 53 failover routing relies on DNS resolution, which can take time to propagate changes across different DNS servers and clients. Moreover, this strategy would not provide deterministic routing, as Route 53 failover routing depends on DNS caching behavior, which can vary depending on different factors.