A gaming company runs session servers behind Network Load Balancers in two AWS Regions. The traffic is latency-sensitive UDP that cannot be cached, and players are dispersed worldwide. The company needs fixed entry IP addresses for client allow-lists, routing over the AWS backbone to the nearest healthy Region, and rapid failover when a Regional endpoint becomes unhealthy. Which service should the architect choose?
- ACreate an Amazon CloudFront distribution in front of both Network Load Balancers so edge locations terminate the player sessions and cache the UDP game traffic close to viewers.
- BUse Amazon Route 53 latency-based records pointing at each Network Load Balancer so DNS resolution sends every player to the lowest-latency Region with quick failover.
- CProvision AWS Global Accelerator with static anycast IPs and endpoint groups for both Regional Network Load Balancers so traffic uses the AWS backbone and fails over on health checks. Correct
- DDeploy an internet gateway with Bring Your Own IP addresses in each Region and let clients connect to whichever Regional gateway address currently responds fastest.
Why A is wrong: CloudFront is built for cacheable HTTP and HTTPS content and does not front raw UDP game traffic, so it cannot serve this non-cacheable latency-sensitive workload.
Why B is wrong: Latency-based DNS helps direct clients but provides no fixed entry IPs and relies on DNS caching, so failover is slower and the allow-list requirement is not met.
Why C is correct: Global Accelerator gives two static anycast IPs for allow-lists, routes TCP and UDP over the AWS backbone to the nearest healthy endpoint, and fails over quickly when an endpoint group is unhealthy.
Why D is wrong: An internet gateway does not provide global anycast entry points, backbone routing, or automatic cross-Region failover, so it cannot satisfy the stated networking requirements.