Visit here for our full Google Professional Cloud Network Engineer exam dumps and practice test questions.
Question 21
Your organization operates a globally distributed application that uses multiple Google Cloud regions. You must design a routing architecture ensuring that on-premises users always connect to the closest and healthiest Google Cloud region through private hybrid connectivity. The environment uses redundant Dedicated Interconnect links at two separate colocation facilities. Your team requires that dynamically learned routes propagate across all regions in a single VPC so compute workloads in any region can reach on-prem networks without manual configuration. Which Google Cloud routing configuration is most appropriate for this design?
A) Regional dynamic routing mode
B) Global dynamic routing mode
C) Static routes with custom priorities
D) Policy-based routing for Interconnect
Answer:
B
Explanation:
The correct answer is B because global dynamic routing mode for Cloud Router is the only configuration that propagates BGP-learned routes beyond the region where they originate. When companies deploy hybrid connectivity using Dedicated Interconnect, they typically want a unified routing table so VMs in multiple regions can consistently reach on-prem resources through the most appropriate path. Global dynamic routing provides this capability by automatically distributing learned routes across all subnets in the entire VPC, regardless of region. This greatly simplifies hybrid architecture and ensures that failover mechanisms work consistently.
Regional dynamic routing mode (Option A) would restrict route propagation to a single region. With a multi-region workload, this results in fragmented connectivity because VMs located in other regions will not automatically learn routes to on-prem networks. You’d need additional Cloud Routers in every region or static routes to compensate, increasing management overhead and making the architecture more fragile.
Static routes with custom priorities (Option C) may work in simple environments, but static routes do not adapt to network changes. Dedicated Interconnect circuits can experience maintenance downtime, unexpected failures, or congestion. Without dynamic BGP updates, static routes risk blackholing traffic or forcing suboptimal routing. A network of this scale absolutely requires dynamic route propagation provided by Cloud Router.
Policy-based routing (Option D) is not supported for Dedicated Interconnect flows because Google Cloud does not let customers manipulate Interconnect routing paths with custom policies. Interconnect uses standard BGP routing, and traffic direction is determined by advertisements, MED values, and local preferences, not application-level policies. Because the scenario requires hybrid routing that spans all regions, global dynamic routing is the only option that meets the requirement for automatic propagation, VPC-wide consistency, and minimized failure domains.
Question 22
You are designing a secure service-to-service communication layer across Compute Engine instances and GKE clusters running in multiple regions. The architecture must provide workload identity, certificate-based authentication, per-service authorization rules, encrypted traffic using mTLS, and advanced traffic policies such as retries, circuit breaking, and session affinity. The solution must not rely on IP-based controls or firewall rules for authorization. Which Google Cloud networking architecture best satisfies these requirements?
A) Traditional VPC firewall rules with service accounts
B) Cloud Armor with IP allowlists
C) Service mesh with Traffic Director and mTLS
D) Cloud Load Balancing with SSL certificates
Answer:
C
Explanation:
Option C is correct because a service mesh integrated with Traffic Director provides workload identity, mTLS-based authentication, certificate rotation, and advanced traffic shaping. Workload identity eliminates IP-based access controls and replaces them with identity-based authorization. mTLS ensures all communication is encrypted and authenticated, preventing spoofing and unauthorized access. A service mesh like Anthos Service Mesh enhances Google Cloud networking by promoting zero-trust communication patterns.
Option A is incorrect because VPC firewall rules operate at the network level and still rely on IP ranges. Even if you attach service accounts to instances, firewall rules cannot enforce identity per request nor provide mTLS encryption or certificate-based mutual authentication. They offer coarse-grained controls and lack true workload-level identity enforcement.
Option B, Cloud Armor with IP allowlists, is intended for external HTTP(S) protection. It cannot secure internal service-to-service communication inside a VPC. It provides edge protection but lacks identity controls and mTLS features. It also does not provide traffic shaping or advanced routing.
Option D, Cloud Load Balancing with SSL certificates, can encrypt traffic and terminate SSL but does not perform mTLS, nor does it offer identity-based internal authorization. The load balancer sees traffic but cannot authenticate workloads to one another directly, nor can it enforce the advanced service-level policies required.
Thus, only a service mesh satisfies the full set of requirements: zero-trust communication, workload identity, encrypted mutual authentication, certificate rotation, policy-based routing, and consistent authorization across distributed microservices.
Question 23
A multinational financial company wants to centralize outbound NAT traffic from multiple VPC networks while maintaining strict isolation between business units. Each business unit operates separate standalone VPCs, which cannot be merged or peered due to compliance policies. The company requires centralized logging, cost control, and shared NAT resources while allowing all workloads lacking external IPs to reach external services securely. Which Google Cloud architecture best supports these requirements without violating isolation policies?
A) Cloud NAT in each individual VPC
B) Shared VPC with centralized Cloud NAT
C) VPC Peering with a shared NAT gateway
D) Hub-and-spoke architecture using Cloud NAT via VPC Network Connectivity Center
Answer:
D
Explanation:
The best answer is D because Network Connectivity Center (NCC) allows organizations to build hub-and-spoke topologies where multiple independent VPCs communicate through a central hub. Although Cloud NAT cannot be directly shared across VPCs, NCC enables routing traffic from spoke VPCs to a centralized NAT gateway in the hub VPC. This meets the requirement for centralized outbound egress while preserving business unit isolation. Traffic flows through private connectivity, maintaining compliance and centralizing logging and policy enforcement.
Option A is insufficient because it requires Cloud NAT to be deployed separately in each VPC, which defeats the goal of centralization and increases cost and administrative overhead. Each business unit would need its own NAT configuration, undermining cost savings and unified control.
Option B violates the scenario constraints. Shared VPC merges network administration into a single host project, which breaks the requirement that each business unit remain fully isolated. Shared VPC is not acceptable in compliance-driven, multi-tenant environments where administrative separation is required.
Option C is invalid because VPC Peering cannot share Cloud NAT. NAT gateway resources are not accessible across peered VPCs, and routing rules for NAT cannot be forwarded between peers. Additionally, VPC Peering is non-transitive, making centralized NAT impossible.
Only Network Connectivity Center provides a compliant and scalable method to route traffic from multiple isolated VPCs to a shared NAT gateway without violating the independence of each business unit. It provides logging visibility, cost efficiency, and centralized governance — exactly what the scenario requires.
Question 24
Your company is implementing a multi-region microservices platform that requires HTTP load balancing with support for Cloud CDN, edge SSL termination, global anycast IP, URL-based routing, and automatic cross-region failover. Some internal services must also be reachable only from within the VPC but still require load balancing intelligence. Which combination of Google Cloud load balancers should you deploy to meet both external and internal traffic requirements?
A) External HTTP(S) Load Balancer only
B) Internal HTTP(S) Load Balancer only
C) External HTTP(S) Load Balancer + Internal HTTP(S) Load Balancer
D) Network Load Balancer + TCP Proxy Load Balancer
Answer:
C
Explanation:
Option C is correct because the External HTTP(S) Load Balancer handles global public traffic, provides Cloud CDN, supports anycast IP, and manages cross-region failover. Meanwhile, the Internal HTTP(S) Load Balancer handles private, internal service traffic exclusively inside the VPC. Together, they provide a complete solution for both external-facing user traffic and internal service-to-service traffic. Many enterprise architectures require separation between public and private microservices for security and compliance, and this combination is the standard Google Cloud approach.
Option A is incorrect because the External HTTP(S) Load Balancer cannot serve internal-only traffic. It always exposes a public endpoint. Internal service communication must remain private, which cannot be achieved through this load balancer.
Option B fails because the Internal HTTP(S) Load Balancer is strictly regional and only supports private access. It lacks global routing, CDN features, multi-region backend failover, and public connectivity. External clients cannot access it.
Option D is not correct. While Network Load Balancer and TCP Proxy Load Balancer serve level-4 traffic needs, they do not support URL-based routing, Cloud CDN, or HTTP-layer intelligence. They also do not satisfy the scenario’s requirement for both global external traffic and private internal traffic.
Thus, to cover all application needs — global external traffic handling and private service-internal load balancing — the correct architectural pairing is the External HTTP(S) Load Balancer and the Internal HTTP(S) Load Balancer.
Question 25
A global enterprise runs latency-sensitive financial applications that require encrypted private connectivity between several on-premises locations and Google Cloud. The organization wants deterministic throughput, minimal jitter, dedicated bandwidth, and the ability to automatically reroute traffic during circuit failures. They also require dynamic routing with BGP, physical redundancy, and compliance with strict SLA guarantees. Which hybrid connectivity model best fits these requirements?
A) Dedicated Interconnect with redundant connections using Cloud Router
B) HA VPN with static routes
C) Partner Interconnect with one VLAN attachment
D) External HTTP(S) Load Balancer plus global routing intelligence
Answer:
A
Explanation:
Option A is the correct choice because Dedicated Interconnect with redundant connections provides the highest levels of performance, security, determinism, and SLA guarantees among all hybrid connectivity solutions in Google Cloud. When deployed with Cloud Router and dynamic BGP routing, it allows automatic failover between circuits, dynamic route advertisement, and reliable hybrid networking with minimal jitter and consistent latency. Financial services and latency-sensitive applications generally require predictable performance, which Dedicated Interconnect is designed to deliver. The use of multiple connections across distinct edge availability domains ensures redundancy and maximizes uptime.
Option B does not meet the performance or SLA requirements. While HA VPN provides redundancy and encrypted tunnels, it still relies on the public internet. This results in variable latency, unpredictable jitter, and no guaranteed throughput. Public internet transport can never provide deterministic performance for mission-critical latency-sensitive workloads.
Option C is also insufficient because Partner Interconnect with only one VLAN attachment introduces a single point of failure. Without redundant VLAN attachments across availability domains, traffic cannot automatically fail over, nor can the architecture meet stringent SLA requirements. Redundancy is essential for financial workloads.
Option D is completely inappropriate because External HTTP(S) Load Balancer is for HTTP application delivery, not hybrid private connectivity. Hybrid connectivity must use Interconnect or VPN, not load balancing. Load balancers also cannot provide deterministic throughput or SLA guarantees for private traffic.
Thus, the only viable architecture for performance, redundancy, SLA compliance, and BGP-based dynamic routing is Dedicated Interconnect deployed with redundant connections.
Question 26
Your enterprise is deploying a global platform that must support real-time synchronization between on-premises systems and workloads running in Google Cloud. The platform needs guaranteed low latency, jitter stability, and fast failover in the event of a physical circuit failure. Your routing team requires dynamic BGP routing so that path selection automatically changes when a failure occurs. The platform also handles sensitive regulated data that must remain on private links and cannot traverse the public internet. Which Google Cloud hybrid connectivity model is best suited for these conditions?
A) HA VPN
B) Dedicated Interconnect with redundant connections
C) Partner Interconnect with only one connection
D) Cloud Router with static routes over public internet
Answer:
B
Explanation:
Option B is correct because Dedicated Interconnect with redundant connections across distinct edge availability domains is specifically designed for environments that require deterministic network performance, extremely low jitter, and predictable latency. Dedicated Interconnect provides private physical connectivity directly into Google’s backbone, bypassing the public internet entirely. When paired with Cloud Router, BGP allows dynamic routing updates, ensuring traffic automatically shifts paths during circuit outages or maintenance windows.
HA VPN (Option A) cannot meet the requirements because although it provides encrypted tunnels and redundancy, it operates over the public internet. Public networks cannot guarantee deterministic latency or jitter control, which is essential for real-time applications such as financial transaction systems, live data pipelines, and IoT sensor aggregation. HA VPN also cannot offer the 99.99 percent SLA available with redundant Dedicated Interconnect deployments.
Option C, Partner Interconnect with only a single VLAN attachment, introduces an unacceptable single point of failure. Even though Partner Interconnect can offer high availability when deployed properly with multiple VLAN attachments across availability domains, the scenario explicitly requires redundancy. One attachment cannot deliver failover and therefore fails the requirements.
Option D is impractical because static routes do not support dynamic path updates. If a link fails, static routes can blackhole traffic until manually corrected. Static pathing also cannot calculate optimal routes in multi-circuit environments. Furthermore, using the public internet violates the requirement that traffic remain on private links only.
Dedicated Interconnect with redundant connections ensures private connectivity, predictable network performance, and seamless routing failover—the exact combination required for a globally distributed, low-latency, high-availability platform.
Question 27
A security-focused organization must prevent workloads from exposing any external IP addresses while still allowing them to initiate outbound connections to services on the internet. The company wants to log all outbound connections, centrally control routing policies, and ensure that NAT gateway scaling is automatic. Additionally, the architecture must prevent inbound internet traffic entirely. Which Google Cloud service is the most appropriate solution for this requirement?
A) Manual NAT instance hosted on Compute Engine
B) Cloud NAT
C) VPC Peering with a shared gateway
D) Partner Interconnect
Answer:
B
Explanation:
The correct answer is B because Cloud NAT is Google Cloud’s fully managed network address translation service that allows VMs without external IP addresses to make outbound connections to the internet. Cloud NAT ensures workloads remain inaccessible from the outside world while supporting centralized NAT gateway configuration. It automatically scales based on traffic volume and provides detailed logging for outbound flows. Cloud NAT enforces the principle of no external IP exposure while still enabling necessary egress.
Option A is not appropriate because a manual NAT instance requires building and maintaining a custom VM-based NAT gateway. This introduces scaling challenges, creates operational overhead, and requires careful management of instance failover, firewall rules, and VM patching. Manual NAT also tends to become a bottleneck in high-throughput environments, and does not meet large-scale enterprise NAT requirements.
Option C, VPC Peering with a shared NAT gateway, is not supported because Cloud NAT cannot be shared across VPCs via peering. VPC Peering enables private IP connectivity between VPCs, but NAT functionality does not propagate or extend across peer connections. Each VPC must independently manage NAT, which contradicts the requirement for centralized egress.
Option D, Partner Interconnect, is completely unrelated to outbound internet NAT needs. Interconnect is designed for hybrid connectivity with on-premises networks and does not help with controlled internet egress from workloads. It cannot serve as a NAT solution and offers no capability for internet-bound connection translation.
Cloud NAT is the only option that matches all requirements: centralized egress, no external IP exposure, predictable routing, managed scalability, and detailed flow logging.
Question 28
Your organization has multiple independent business units, each operating its own VPC. Compliance rules forbid merging these VPCs or sharing administrative control. The company wants all business units to reach shared internal services located in a central VPC while maintaining strict isolation. The architecture must avoid transitive routing problems and must not expose any workload to the public internet. Which Google Cloud networking feature is best suited to this hub-and-spoke connectivity model?
A) VPC Peering
B) Network Connectivity Center (NCC)
C) Private Service Connect for producer and consumer VPCs
D) Shared VPC with centralized firewalling
Answer:
C
Explanation:
The best choice is C because Private Service Connect (PSC) allows multiple consumer VPCs to privately connect to services running in a producer VPC. PSC maintains isolation between VPCs since only the service endpoint is exposed—never the entire network. This matches the compliance requirement of strict separation. PSC is especially powerful in environments where business units cannot share VPC resources, identities, or network administration but still need to access shared internal platforms such as databases, APIs, or microservices.
Option A, VPC Peering, is not ideal because peering creates flat private connectivity between VPCs. It does not allow fine-grained service-level isolation. Worse, VPC Peering does not support transitive routing: if VPC A peers with B and B peers with C, A cannot reach C. In a hub-and-spoke environment, this becomes a major architectural limitation.
Option B, Network Connectivity Center, is typically used for full network-level connectivity between VPCs or hybrid environments. NCC is excellent for routing entire network CIDR blocks but does not provide the service-level isolation described. NCC connects networks, not individual services.
Option D, Shared VPC, violates the requirement that business units remain independent and administratively isolated. Shared VPC consolidates network administration in one host project and forces service projects to depend on a shared administrators group, which breaks compliance boundaries.
PSC is the only solution offering per-service exposure, strict VPC isolation, and private internal connectivity. It avoids transitive routing issues by not exposing VPC networks at all—only internal services. This results in clean, compliant architecture suitable for multi-tenant enterprise environments.
Question 29
You are designing an ingress strategy for a multi-region Google Kubernetes Engine deployment. Your architecture must support global load balancing, Cloud CDN integration, edge termination of HTTPS, URL-based routing, and automatic failover between backends in different regions. At the same time, internal microservices that are not exposed publicly must use private load balancing. Which solution best satisfies these combined requirements?
A) TCP Proxy Load Balancer for all traffic
B) External HTTP(S) Load Balancer for public traffic and Internal HTTP(S) Load Balancer for private services
C) Internal TCP/UDP Network Load Balancer for all traffic
D) Classic Load Balancer with Cloud CDN
Answer:
B
Explanation:
The correct answer is B because the External HTTP(S) Load Balancer is Google Cloud’s global L7 load balancer with full support for CDN, edge termination, global anycast IPs, routing intelligence, and cross-region failover. This satisfies the public-facing portion of the architecture. The Internal HTTP(S) Load Balancer handles private traffic inside the VPC, supporting service-to-service communication without exposing internal endpoints to the internet. This dual-load-balancer pattern is standard for microservice deployments requiring strict segmentation between public and internal traffic.
Option A is incorrect because the TCP Proxy Load Balancer operates at layer 4 and does not support Cloud CDN, URL routing, or multi-region HTTP termination. It is not suitable for advanced HTTP/S application distribution.
Option C cannot satisfy public ingress requirements. Internal TCP/UDP Network Load Balancing is meant for internal private traffic only and does not integrate with Cloud CDN or global routing.
Option D, Classic Load Balancer, is an outdated product family lacking global anycast support and advanced multi-region routing. It also does not support full Cloud CDN integration with modern configurations. It cannot meet the combination of internal and external requirements described.
The dual solution—External HTTP(S) LB + Internal HTTP(S) LB—provides the exact capabilities needed for both global public request handling and internal service routing.
Question 30
A mission-critical enterprise system must ensure that all traffic from on-premises environments to Google Cloud remains on private links only. The system transmits regulation-sensitive data and must meet strict SLAs. It requires redundant connectivity, dynamic routing via BGP, and the ability to automatically reroute traffic in the event of a circuit failure. The organization has multiple physical sites that must connect to Google Cloud with stable, predictable performance. Which connectivity solution best meets these requirements?
A) HA VPN
B) Partner Interconnect with two VLAN attachments in separate edge availability domains
C) Dedicated Interconnect with redundant circuits and Cloud Router
D) Direct Peering
Answer:
C
Explanation:
The correct answer is C because Dedicated Interconnect with redundant circuits provides high-capacity private connectivity, deterministic latency, and the strongest SLA guarantees available in Google Cloud hybrid networking. When paired with Cloud Router, BGP automatically advertises and adjusts routes as circuits fail or recover. This ensures maximum uptime and extremely stable performance.
Option A is insufficient because HA VPN uses the public internet. Even though the connection is encrypted and redundant, it cannot provide deterministic performance, nor can it satisfy the requirement to avoid public internet entirely.
Option B is valid for high availability, but Partner Interconnect relies on a third-party provider and does not match the performance consistency of Dedicated Interconnect. While redundancy across edge availability domains is beneficial, Partner Interconnect cannot guarantee the same deterministic performance profile or SLA.
Option D (Direct Peering) only provides access to Google public APIs and does not connect directly to VPC networks. It is not designed for hybrid private networking and does not meet the private-link requirement.
Dedicated Interconnect remains the gold standard for enterprises requiring private, deterministic, SLA-backed connectivity with dynamic routing and physical redundancy.
Question 31
Your enterprise is migrating a set of tightly coupled applications into Google Cloud. These applications must communicate exclusively over internal private IP addresses using low-latency, secure channels. Your architecture requires a global private load balancing solution that can route internal service requests across multiple regions using only Google’s private backbone. The solution must not expose any public IP address, and failover between regions must occur automatically without manual reconfiguration. Which Google Cloud service best fulfills these internal multi-region traffic distribution requirements?
A) Internal HTTP(S) Load Balancer with global access
B) External HTTP(S) Load Balancer with private backends
C) TCP/UDP Network Load Balancer
D) Classic Internal Load Balancer
Answer:
A
Explanation:
Option A is correct because the Internal HTTP(S) Load Balancer with global access provides a modern, private, multi-region traffic distribution mechanism over Google’s private backbone. This design allows workloads in multiple regions to communicate privately using internal IP addresses while still benefiting from global load balancing features such as cross-region failover, internal service routing, health checking, and distribution based on HTTP semantics. It ensures no public IP exposure while maintaining the flexibility and intelligence expected from global application-layer load balancing.
Option B is incorrect because the External HTTP(S) Load Balancer is designed specifically for public-facing traffic. It requires a public IP address and therefore cannot meet the requirement of zero internet exposure. Although it can use private backends, the front-end exposure makes it unsuitable for internal-only traffic flows.
Option C is not appropriate because the Internal TCP/UDP Network Load Balancer operates at layer 4 and is strictly regional. It does not offer global routing intelligence, multi-region failover, or the HTTP-level traffic management necessary in many microservices architectures. It also lacks cross-region private routing capabilities since each region would need separate L4 load balancers.
Option D, Classic Internal Load Balancer, is outdated and strictly regional. It provides no global access capabilities and cannot route traffic across regions using private IP. It also offers fewer features than the newer Internal HTTP(S) Load Balancer, making it a poor choice for modern multi-region internal workloads.
The Internal HTTP(S) Load Balancer with global access is uniquely suited to private multi-region service-to-service communication, meeting all the architectural requirements for privacy, performance, and failover.
Question 32
Your organization needs to distribute secure internal API services to multiple consumer teams without exposing the APIs to the public internet. Each consumer operates its own VPC and must remain administratively isolated. You must provide private access, identity separation, and the ability to meter or log access per consumer without allowing consumers to see each other’s networks. No transitive routing or VPC peering should be involved. Which Google Cloud networking approach satisfies these strict multi-tenant API exposure requirements?
A) VPC Peering
B) Shared VPC
C) Private Service Connect endpoints for each consumer
D) Cloud VPN tunnels from each consumer VPC
Answer:
C
Explanation:
Option C is correct because Private Service Connect (PSC) enables producers to expose internal services privately to consumer VPCs without exposing the underlying network. PSC provides private connectivity while maintaining complete isolation between consumer VPCs. Each consumer gets its own private endpoint, ensuring network boundaries are preserved and preventing lateral visibility across VPCs. PSC also supports detailed logging, quotas, and metering, giving producers strong visibility and control over how each consumer interacts with exposed APIs.
Option A, VPC Peering, is not appropriate for multi-tenant service exposure because it creates flat network connectivity between VPCs. Peering violates strict isolation requirements since both sides gain network-level access to internal IP ranges. Furthermore, peering does not support transitive routing, making it unsuitable in multi-consumer architectures where services must be shared but networks must remain isolated.
Option B, Shared VPC, centralizes network control in a host project. This breaks administrative isolation, as service projects rely on a single controlling group. Shared VPC functions well for internal teams under one administrative control domain, but not for multi-tenant, compliance-heavy environments requiring strict separation.
Option D, Cloud VPN tunnels, introduces unnecessary overhead and requires each consumer to provision infrastructure and configure IPsec. VPNs also expose whole network segments, weakening isolation. PSC, by contrast, exposes only specific services, not networks, and thus meets security and compliance requirements precisely.
PSC is the only purpose-built mechanism to privately publish internal services across fully isolated VPC environments with consumer-level endpoint isolation and service-level access control.
Question 33
Your company is building a high-throughput, latency-sensitive system that must consume a continuous stream of data from on-premises sensors and industrial control systems. You require deterministic routing, private connectivity, SLA-backed performance, and high availability. Additionally, your on-prem equipment supports BGP and must dynamically advertise preferred routes based on physical topology. Traffic must never traverse the public internet. Which hybrid connectivity method should be selected?
A) HA VPN with dynamic routing
B) Partner Interconnect with redundant VLAN attachments
C) Dedicated Interconnect with Cloud Router and redundant links
D) Direct Peering with Google’s edge network
Answer:
C
Explanation:
Option C is the correct choice because Dedicated Interconnect provides private, deterministic, high-bandwidth connectivity with dynamic routing via Cloud Router. When configured with redundant links, Dedicated Interconnect meets stringent uptime and SLA requirements for industrial systems that demand real-time data delivery. Cloud Router supports BGP, enabling automatic exchange of routing information and seamless failover between circuits.
Option A, HA VPN, operates over the public internet. While dynamic routing is possible and redundancy is supported, the inherent unpredictability of internet traffic—latency spikes, jitter, and congestion—makes HA VPN unsuitable for industrial and sensor-based applications that need deterministic performance.
Option B, Partner Interconnect with redundancy, provides strong availability but still relies on a partner network. While this can work in some situations, it does not offer the same deterministic performance guarantees as Dedicated Interconnect. The partner’s underlying architecture may introduce variability not acceptable in high-throughput, latency-critical environments.
Option D, Direct Peering, is not designed for hybrid connectivity between on-prem networks and VPCs. Direct Peering provides access to Google public services (Google APIs), not private VPC networks, and therefore cannot support secure internal connectivity needed by sensor streams.
Dedicated Interconnect with redundant circuits is the only solution that provides the combination of private connectivity, SLA-backed performance, deterministic behavior, and dynamic BGP capabilities required by this scenario.
Question 34
Your enterprise requires a centralized security perimeter around its Google Cloud environment. All access to managed services such as BigQuery, Cloud Storage, and Pub/Sub must be restricted to private access only. Data exfiltration through the public internet must be prevented. Your teams operate multiple VPCs, and each VPC must enforce the same restrictive access policies. Which Google Cloud service allows you to define a strong per-service security perimeter that prevents data exfiltration while still allowing internal private access?
A) VPC Service Controls
B) Private Google Access
C) Cloud NAT
D) Organization-level firewall rules
Answer:
A
Explanation:
Option A, VPC Service Controls (VPC-SC), is correct because it provides a hardened security perimeter around Google-managed services. VPC-SC prevents data exfiltration by enforcing that access to sensitive services is restricted to requests originating from authorized VPCs, service perimeters, and identity contexts. It is the primary tool Google Cloud offers for mitigating data leakage risks when interacting with managed services such as Cloud Storage or BigQuery. VPC-SC also supports multi-VPC architectures and integrates with IAM to enforce granular access control.
Option B, Private Google Access, allows workloads without external IPs to reach Google APIs privately. However, it does not enforce a security perimeter or prevent data exfiltration; it simply routes traffic privately. It is a network feature, not a security perimeter mechanism.
Option C, Cloud NAT, is used for outbound internet egress from workloads without external IP addresses. It does not provide any perimeter-level policy to restrict access to Google APIs, nor does it prevent data leaks into external services.
Option D, organization-level firewall rules, helps enforce network policies across projects. However, firewall rules cannot restrict access to Google-managed services at the API level. They operate at layer 3 and therefore cannot provide application-level exfiltration prevention.
VPC Service Controls uniquely provides strong, managed-service–level isolation that prevents data from leaving designated perimeters, making it the correct and only choice.
Question 35
Your company wants to create a simplified hub-and-spoke model for interconnecting multiple VPC networks located across several global regions. Each spoke VPC must communicate through a central hub VPC, and routes between spokes must never become transitive. The central hub must also integrate with on-premises networks using either VPN or Interconnect. The architecture must remain scalable as new VPCs are added. Which Google Cloud service provides this unified, centrally managed connectivity fabric?
A) VPC Peering
B) Network Connectivity Center (NCC)
C) Shared VPC
D) Cloud Router in regional mode
Answer:
B
Explanation:
Option B is correct because Network Connectivity Center (NCC) provides a centralized hub-and-spoke connectivity fabric for managing multiple VPCs, hybrid networks, and connectivity spokes across global Google Cloud regions. NCC supports scalable routing through hub virtual attachments and allows integration with Cloud VPN or Dedicated/Partner Interconnect. Output routes are propagated through the hub while ensuring spokes cannot communicate directly with one another, preventing transitive routing violations. NCC is designed for exactly this scenario: multi-VPC global architectures with centralized hybrid connectivity requirements.
Option A, VPC Peering, cannot satisfy the hub-and-spoke requirement because it provides flat connectivity between paired VPCs and does not support transitive routing. This makes it impossible to use peering for scalable multi-spoke environments. Additionally, peering becomes increasingly unmanageable as the number of spokes grows.
Option C, Shared VPC, consolidates administrative control under one host project, but this violates isolation requirements in multi-team or multi-business-unit environments. It also does not create a routing hub or support hybrid hub functionality required for on-prem connectivity integration.
Option D is insufficient because Cloud Router in regional mode does not provide a global routing plane or a hub-and-spoke connectivity pattern. It handles BGP sessions but does not create a unified routing fabric.
NCC is the only service that solves global multi-VPC connectivity with centralized hub routing and straightforward hybrid network integration.
Question 36
Your enterprise needs to ensure that application traffic between multiple regions stays entirely on Google’s private backbone, even during failover scenarios. The application consists of several microservices deployed across different GKE clusters in different Google Cloud regions. The architecture must support internal-only traffic, mutual TLS authentication, identity-aware routing, fine-grained authorization, and automated certificate rotation. Additionally, service discovery and internal traffic management must be dynamic and policy-driven. Which Google Cloud architecture is best suited to fulfill these complex inter-region communication requirements?
A) Global Internal HTTP(S) Load Balancer only
B) VPC Peering with firewall rules for microservice isolation
C) Anthos Service Mesh with Traffic Director
D) Cloud VPN between regional clusters
Answer:
C
Explanation:
Option C is correct because Anthos Service Mesh combined with Traffic Director meets every requirement of a sophisticated, multi-region, service-to-service communication architecture. It provides identity-aware routing, mutual TLS encryption, certificate rotation, service discovery, and fine-grained authorization. Anthos Service Mesh builds on open service mesh standards to offer consistent policy enforcement and deep observability across microservices. Traffic Director acts as the global control plane, distributing routing rules, failover logic, and traffic shaping policies across regions. When deployed across multiple GKE clusters, this architecture ensures that all inter-service communication remains private and secure on Google’s backbone.
Option A, the global Internal HTTP(S) Load Balancer, is powerful for private traffic distribution but cannot provide workload identity, mTLS service-to-service encryption, or per-service routing and authorization logic. It lacks dynamic service discovery at the workload level and cannot perform fine-grained identity-based routing.
Option B, VPC Peering with firewall rules, provides basic network connectivity but fails to deliver application-layer identity, mTLS, traffic policy management, or dynamic service discovery. IP-based firewalling is inadequate for modern security architectures that require zero-trust features.
Option D, Cloud VPN between regional clusters, is not suitable because it introduces unnecessary latency, uses the public internet, and cannot provide identity-based, service-level controls. It also does not integrate with mTLS-based authentication or provide traffic shaping capabilities.
Anthos Service Mesh with Traffic Director is the only architecture that meets the full set of technical, security, and operational requirements in a multi-region microservices environment.
Question 37
Your company is building a multi-tenant SaaS analytics platform hosted in Google Cloud. Each tenant requires private and isolated access to shared backend analytics services. The architecture must ensure network-level isolation between tenants while still allowing each tenant to reach the shared analytics API. The API must not expose a public endpoint, cannot rely on VPC Peering due to transitive routing limitations, and must scale to hundreds of tenants seamlessly. Which Google Cloud networking feature is the best fit for this scenario?
A) Dedicated Interconnect for each tenant
B) Shared VPC with service projects for each tenant
C) Private Service Connect endpoints per tenant
D) Cloud VPN tunnels for each tenant
Answer:
C
Explanation:
Option C is the correct answer because Private Service Connect (PSC) is specifically designed for scalable, multi-tenant, service-level connectivity across isolated VPC environments. PSC allows each tenant to create a private endpoint within its own VPC that connects directly to the shared analytics API in the producer VPC without exposing the underlying network. This preserves strict isolation between tenants, prevents lateral network access, and allows the producer to monitor and meter usage on a per-tenant basis, which is essential for SaaS platforms.
Option A, Dedicated Interconnect for each tenant, is impractical and cost-prohibitive. Interconnect is designed for enterprise hybrid connectivity, not multi-tenant SaaS exposure. It also does not scale efficiently and cannot meet the requirement for hundreds of tenants.
Option B, Shared VPC, centralizes networking and breaks administrative isolation. It requires all tenants to be part of the same trust boundary, which violates multi-tenant separation. Shared VPC is appropriate for internal teams but not for external or isolated tenants.
Option D, Cloud VPN, is overly complex for SaaS access. Deploying VPN tunnels per tenant would be difficult to manage, expensive, and would expose network segments rather than individual services. It also introduces public internet routing, which the scenario aims to avoid.
PSC is the only solution that supports massive tenant scale, strict isolation, private connectivity, and service-level exposure without network-level coupling—perfect for multi-tenant SaaS architectures.
Question 38
An enterprise has deployed a global set of distributed applications that rely heavily on BigQuery, Cloud Storage, and Pub/Sub. The organization must enforce a strict “no data exfiltration” policy so that sensitive data cannot be accessed from outside an approved security perimeter. All API calls to Google-managed services must come only from authorized networks, and the architecture must support multiple VPCs across several projects. Which Google Cloud security control provides this level of managed-service isolation and prevents data exfiltration?
A) Cloud Armor
B) VPC Service Controls
C) IAM Conditions combined with firewall rules
D) Private Google Access
Answer:
B
Explanation:
Option B is correct because VPC Service Controls provide a strong, Google-managed security boundary around services like BigQuery, Cloud Storage, and Pub/Sub. By enforcing a service perimeter, VPC-SC prevents API calls from leaving approved networks, dramatically reducing the ability for attackers or misconfigured workloads to exfiltrate sensitive data. It works across multiple VPCs and scales well across numerous projects in an organization. VPC-SC is the recommended approach in compliance-sensitive environments such as healthcare, finance, and government.
Option A, Cloud Armor, protects applications from external attacks but does not restrict access to Google-managed services or prevent exfiltration. It operates at the HTTP(S) edge, not at the API level.
Option C combines IAM and firewall rules, but these tools only control identity and network traffic—not the managed-service perimeter. IAM cannot prevent data leaving a network if a legitimate identity is compromised. Firewall rules do not apply to Google-managed service access.
Option D, Private Google Access, ensures that VM instances without external IPs can reach Google APIs via internal routes. However, it does not enforce a security boundary or prevent unauthorized API access from other locations.
VPC Service Controls is the only mechanism designed explicitly to prevent data exfiltration from Google-managed services and enforce perimeters across multi-project and multi-VPC environments.
Question 39
Your organization wants to interconnect dozens of globally distributed VPC networks and multiple on-premises sites in a unified topology. You need a central management point that supports hybrid connectivity, dynamic routing, non-transitive spokes, and the ability to scale as more VPCs and sites join the network. All routing must remain private and under organizational control. Which Google Cloud solution provides this architecture?
A) VPC Peering mesh
B) Network Connectivity Center (NCC)
C) Shared VPC with multiple service projects
D) Cloud Router in global mode only
Answer:
B
Explanation:
Option B is correct because Network Connectivity Center allows organizations to build a scalable global hub-and-spoke network architecture. NCC supports hybrid connectivity via VPN or Interconnect, integrates dynamic routing using Cloud Router, and ensures that spokes do not gain transitive access to each other. This prevents lateral movement while enabling centralized management. As new VPCs or on-prem sites are added, they simply attach as new spokes, dramatically simplifying the architecture.
Option A, a VPC Peering mesh, quickly becomes unmanageable. VPC Peering is non-transitive, meaning you must peer each VPC with every other VPC, creating exponential growth in configuration. It also does not support hybrid spokes elegantly and cannot scale to dozens of networks efficiently.
Option C, Shared VPC, consolidates network administration and breaks isolation boundaries. It is intended for internal organizational teams, not for global multi-VPC interconnection with hybrid integration.
Option D, Cloud Router in global mode, is a routing mechanism but not a connectivity fabric. It cannot unify hybrid networks or manage multiple VPCs. It only handles dynamic route propagation—not overall topology management.
Network Connectivity Center is the unified, scalable solution for global hybrid hub-and-spoke environments.
Question 40
A financial services enterprise is designing a mission-critical hybrid architecture. All connections from on-prem environments to Google Cloud must avoid the public internet entirely. The architecture must support private, encrypted connectivity, automatic failover, deterministic network behavior, and the highest SLA available. BGP must dynamically adjust routes, and workloads in multiple Google Cloud regions must access on-prem systems consistently. Which connectivity model meets all these enterprise-grade requirements?
A) HA VPN with Cloud Router
B) Partner Interconnect with redundant attachments
C) Dedicated Interconnect with redundant circuits and Cloud Router
D) Direct Peering with Google’s edge
Answer:
C
Explanation:
Option C is correct because Dedicated Interconnect with redundant circuits provides private, SLA-backed, deterministic connectivity that completely avoids the public internet. When combined with Cloud Router, BGP dynamically exchanges routes and adjusts automatically during failover events. This setup supports multi-region workloads, hybrid communication, and strict compliance standards common in financial organizations.
Option A is insufficient because HA VPN utilizes the public internet. Even with encryption and redundancy, it cannot guarantee deterministic performance or avoid the internet entirely.
Option B, Partner Interconnect with redundancy, provides strong availability but relies on a partner’s infrastructure. It cannot match the performance guarantees, consistency, or SLA level of Dedicated Interconnect.
Option D, Direct Peering, only provides access to Google public services, not VPC networks. It cannot satisfy private hybrid connectivity requirements.
Dedicated Interconnect with redundancy and Cloud Router is the gold-standard enterprise hybrid connectivity model.
