Choosing the migration network path: a VPN is faster to stand up, so why is Direct Connect still 'highly recommended' for SAP migrations, and when is Site-to-Site VPN actually acceptable?

You need to connect a remote branch office network (not individual laptops) to AWS over an encrypted tunnel, and you want redundancy. Which of the four AWS VPN options fits, and which one is the trap?

An SAP org refuses any internet-path connectivity to AWS. Given that a VPN is encrypted and quick to set up, why do most of them still choose Direct Connect instead?

You have one VPN/Direct Connect on-prem link and a growing number of VPCs that all need to reach it and each other. Why does stitching them with VPC peering break down, and what fixes it?

Two requirements land separately: (a) traffic must be encrypted in transit, (b) traffic must never touch the public internet. One is satisfied by VPN, the other by Direct Connect. Which is which, and why can't you assume one gives you both?

You need a Direct Connect link sized above 10 Gbps. Does it matter whether you go dedicated or hosted (through a delivery partner), and why?

A global company wants its multiple data centers and offices to talk to each other through AWS, not over the internet. Someone proposes a mesh of site-to-site VPNs. Which Direct Connect feature is the cleaner fit, and what's the key distinction?