A company is deploying third-party firewall appliances for traffic inspection and NAT capabilities in its VPC. The VPC is configured with private subnets and public subnets. The company needs to deploy the firewall appliances behind a load balancer. Which architecture will meet these requirements MOST cost-effectively?
Select an option, then click Submit answer.
Reference / correct answer:
Deploy a Gateway Load Balancer with the firewall appliances as targets. Configure the firewall appliances with two network interfaces: one network interface in a private subnet and another network interface in a public subnet. Use the NAT functionality on the firewall appliances to send the traffic to the internet after inspection.
Most accepted answer: B. Deploy a Gateway Load Balancer with the firewall appliances as targets. Configure the firewall appliances with two network interfaces: one network interface in a private subnet and another network interface in a public subnet. Use the NAT functionality on the firewall appliances to send the traffic to the internet after inspection.
Community votes: B=8, D=1
The answer is obviously B. 100% of the people voted for B. Why does this show the correct solution as D? Why are more than half of the "correct solution", the wrong one? upvoted 13 times
Two-arm mode: As shown in figure 5b below, the firewall is deployed in two-arm mode and performs both inspection as well as NAT. Some AWS partners provide firewall with NAT functionality. GWLB integrates seamlessly in such deployment mode. You don’t need to do any additional configuration changes in the GWLB. However, the firewall networking differs – one network interface is on the private subnet and the other is on public subnet. This mode requires software support from the firewall partner. Some of the GWLB partners (Palo Alto Networks, Valtix) support this feature, however consult with an AWS partner of your choice before using this mode. Based on the above, can we blindly choose two-arm or NAT functionality within the firewall for all third party vendor appliances. Also, the cost of implementing firewall in two-arm mode for each appliance vs. cost of a single NAT gateway needs to be evaluated. upvoted 7 times
Selected Answer: B This solution meets the requirements most cost-effectively because: It uses a Gateway Load Balancer, which is free of charge for AWS services (it's just an instance of a free service provided by AWS). The firewall appliances are configured with two network interfaces: one in a private subnet and another in a public subnet. This allows the firewall appliances to inspect traffic coming from both the internet and the VPC without requiring additional NAT configurations. By using the NAT functionality on the firewall appliances, you can send traffic to the internet after inspection, meeting the requirements for both third-party firewall appliances and the need to deploy them behind a load balancer. upvoted 1 times
B is correct for applliances! upvoted 1 times
Selected Answer: B Firewall for "Traffic inspection" and "Nat capablities" ==> Two arm mode upvoted 1 times