A European carmaker is migrating customer-facing services and an analytics platform from two on-premises data centers to AWS. The sites are 50 miles (80.4 km) apart and that separation must be preserved in the cloud, with failover between the two cloud locations. The company uses multiple AWS accounts and provisions resources in eu-west-3 and eu-central-1. It orders two resilient 1 Gbps fiber connections from a Direct Connect Partner in each Region. The network engineer must connect all VPCs across accounts and on-premises networks so services remain available from both Regions during network issues. Which design meets these constraints?

The correct design uses a Direct Connect gateway to centralize connectivity from on-premises to AWS. Creating a Transit Gateway in each AWS Region (eu-west-3 and eu-central-1) allows for regional VPC connectivity and inter-region communication via Transit Gateway peering. Attaching the Transit Gateways to the Direct Connect gateway with transit VIFs enables on-premises networks to reach all VPCs through the Transit Gateways. This setup provides the required redundancy and separation across Regions, allowing services to remain available during network issues. The other options are incorrect because: Using private VIFs directly with VPC virtual private gateways doesn't scale well for multiple VPCs across accounts and Regions, and ECMP is not typically used for aggregating connections across distinct Direct Connect locations in this manner. Aggregating all four connections into a single LAG across two Regions is not feasible or recommended, as LAGs are for bundling multiple physical connections to a single Direct Connect endpoint. Transit VIFs should be attached to the Direct Connect gateway, not the Transit Gateway directly. Attaching a single Transit Gateway to the Direct Connect gateway and all VPCs would not provide the required regional separation and failover capabilities between eu-west-3 and eu-central-1. LAGs are also misapplied here.