Which solution will meet these requirements?
Create an Amazon CloudFront distribution. Configure the existing ALB as the origin.
Use Amazon Route 53 to serve traffic to the ALB and EC2 instances based on the geographic location of each customer.
Create an Amazon S3 bucket with public read access enabled. Migrate the web application to the S3 bucket. Configure the S3 bucket for website hosting.
Use AWS Direct Connect to directly serve content from the web application to the location of each customer.
Explanations:
Creating an Amazon CloudFront distribution with the ALB as the origin allows for caching and delivering dynamic content closer to users globally, reducing latency and improving load times. This solution is cost-effective and optimizes content delivery.
While using Amazon Route 53 can help route traffic based on geographic location, it does not inherently improve the global serving of dynamic content or optimize costs effectively compared to a CDN solution like CloudFront.
Migrating the web application to an S3 bucket with public access is suitable for static content only. S3 cannot serve dynamic content effectively, which is required for the application.
AWS Direct Connect provides a dedicated network connection but is not a cost-optimized solution for globally serving web content and does not directly enhance the application’s ability to serve dynamic content
I surmise that the answer is:
Create an Amazon CloudFront distribution. Configure the existing ALB as the origin.