select TWO - Litware operates a subnet with a NAT Gateway (NAT-GW) providing outbound for 40 Linux VMs. The team sees SNAT port exhaustion during large scale concurrent outbound connections. Which two steps will increase the available SNAT ports for outbound connections from that subnet?

Adding additional public IP addresses or assigning a public IP prefix to the existing NAT Gateway is correct because each public IP address provides 64,512 SNAT ports, directly increasing the total available ports. Deploying a second NAT Gateway in a new subnet and moving some VMs to it is also correct. This effectively creates two separate SNAT port pools, distributing the outbound traffic and alleviating exhaustion on the original gateway. Increasing the idle timeout is incorrect; while it can help with port reuse, it doesn't increase the total available ports. Changing the NAT Gateway SKU to Standard Load Balancer is incorrect; NAT Gateway is designed for outbound connectivity and has different scaling characteristics than a load balancer. Replacing NAT Gateway with Azure Firewall Premium is incorrect; while Azure Firewall offers advanced features, it doesn't automatically provide "unlimited" SNAT ports and is a different service with different cost and management implications.