A VPC (VPC1) has a single NAT gateway in AZ1 that provides internet access for EC2 instances in private subnets across AZ1, AZ2, and AZ3. During an outage, the NAT gateway became unavailable and internet access failed. The engineer must remove this single point of failure and add built-in redundancy. Which design meets the requirement?

The correct solution involves deploying a NAT Gateway in each Availability Zone (AZ) where private subnets need internet access. Each NAT Gateway should reside in a public subnet within its respective AZ. The route table for private subnets in AZ2 should be configured to direct internet-bound traffic (0.0.0.0/0) to the NAT Gateway in AZ2. Similarly, a separate route table for private subnets in AZ3 should point to the NAT Gateway in AZ3. This design ensures that if one AZ experiences an outage, the NAT Gateway in another AZ remains operational, providing redundancy and eliminating a single point of failure. Incorrect options: Referencing virtual IP addresses of both NAT gateways in a single route table is not a standard or supported configuration for NAT Gateway redundancy. Configuring a single route table to point different AZ private subnets to different NAT gateways within the same route table is syntactically incorrect and not how AWS route tables function for this scenario. Creating a second VPC and placing NAT gateways across VPCs for redundancy within a single VPC's private subnets is overly complex and not the intended solution for AZ-level NAT Gateway redundancy.