A company has VPCs and a transit gateway in us-east-1 that are connected to a Direct Connect gateway providing private connectivity to a US data center. The company opened a London office and will create VPC workloads in eu-west-2. London users must have private access to us-east-1 workloads, and the US data center must have access to workloads in eu-west-2. The solution should be flexible for growth and minimize operational effort. Which design meets these requirements with the least operational work?

The correct option leverages the existing Direct Connect gateway (DXGW) and establishes a new Direct Connect (DX) connection from London, attaching it to the same DXGW. This allows the London office to access resources connected to that DXGW, including the US data center. A new Transit Gateway (TGW) in eu-west-2 is created to host London workloads, and it's associated with the existing DXGW. A TGW peering connection between us-east-1 and eu-west-2 enables private access between workloads in both regions. This design is flexible and minimizes operational overhead by centralizing DX connectivity through one DXGW. Incorrect options: Creating a Site-to-Site VPN from London to the DXGW is not possible; VPNs connect to TGWs or VPCs, not DXGWs directly. Creating a Site-to-Site VPN to each VPC in us-east-1 is inefficient, lacks scalability, and increases operational burden. Creating a new DXGW in eu-west-2 would prevent the London office from easily accessing the US data center via the existing DXGW, requiring more complex routing or additional connections.