Google ACE Practice Question: With multiple teams needs to provision separate,…

Answer analysis

Option-by-option breakdown

For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.

• ✗

  Network Service Tiers (Premium vs Standard)

  Why it's wrong here

  Network Service Tiers affect only the quality of service and pricing for internet egress, not network isolation or resource sharing. Premium Tier routes traffic over Google's global backbone, while Standard Tier uses ISP networks; neither capability creates separate administrative domains, nor does it prevent teams from interfering with each other's resources. Choosing a tier therefore has zero impact on the requirement to provision separate environments for multiple teams.

• ✓

  Shared VPC (XPN)

  Why this is correct

  Shared VPC (XPN) is the correct solution because it separates teams into distinct service projects while allowing a central host project to own the VPC network, subnets, and all networking resources. Each team project can be administered independently by its own IAM roles, yet they all use the same shared subnets, firewall policies, and routes managed centrally. This gives project-level isolation for compute resources and data, while enabling a central network team to control connectivity, NAT, and firewall rules uniformly — exactly what multi-team separation requires.

• ✗

  VPC Network Peering between team VPCs

  Why it's wrong here

  VPC Network Peering connects two separate VPCs via private RFC 1918 connectivity, but it does not centralize management: each team's VPC is still administered independently, and peering is transitive in only limited cases (and never across multiple hops). Firewall rules, NAT gateways, and Cloud VPN tunnels must be separately configured in each VPC, and if teams need a common egress path or shared services, peering alone cannot provide that without additional complex routing. Thus, while peering gives network-level connectivity, it fails to meet the goal of centrally provisioned, isolated team environments.

• ✗

  Single VPC with per-team firewall rules

  Why it's wrong here

  A single VPC with per-team firewall rules does create network-level traffic isolation using firewall tags or service accounts, but all teams still share the same network, subnets, routes, and IP address space. This means a misconfigured rule or a compromised instance in one team can potentially reach another team's resources, and there is no project-level administrative boundary — IAM permissions on the VPC itself are shared. It also prevents teams from independently managing their own subnets, NAT, or VPC-level resources, so it is not a true separation of environments.

Go deeper

Related to this question