Story 3 — Azure Landing Zone Implementation

Use for: architecture, Terraform/CDKTF, reusable infrastructure, multi-region design, cloud platform engineering.

Search keywords: Azure landing zone architecture Terraform CDKTF hub spoke EMEA America Asia test production reusable modules

Important positioning

Do not claim that you were the sole architect of the entire landing zone if that was not your role.

I was heavily involved in implementing the landing zone architecture through Terraform/CDKTF, and I understood how the modules fitted into the overall architecture.

30-second answer

I worked on an Azure landing zone for a German enterprise moving workloads from on-premises to Azure. The environment was organized across regions such as EMEA, America and Asia, with test and production environments depending on requirements. My main responsibility was implementing the architecture through Terraform/CDKTF. I worked on the modules and the configuration connecting them, while understanding how networking, shared services and workload environments fitted together. When another region was needed, we reused the existing modules and supplied region-specific configuration instead of rebuilding everything.

STAR answer

Situation

I worked on an Azure landing zone for a German enterprise customer moving workloads from on-premises to Azure.

The environment was organized by region, such as EMEA, America and Asia, and generally had separate test and production environments depending on customer requirements.

Task

My main responsibility was implementing the landing zone architecture through Terraform/CDKTF.

I was not the sole architect of the entire landing zone, but I needed to understand how networking, shared services, environments and workload resources fitted together so I could implement the modules correctly.

Action

I worked mainly on Terraform/CDKTF modules and the configuration connecting those modules.

The landing zone used a hub-and-spoke pattern. Shared services such as firewall, DNS, Bastion and centralized security controls were part of the shared layer, while workload environments were separated appropriately.

When a new region was required, we first checked which resources were actually needed, referenced the existing Terraform modules, provided region-specific configuration and deployed them.

Result

The architecture could be reused across regions and environments. Adding a region was mainly a matter of selecting required resources, composing existing modules and providing the appropriate configuration rather than creating a completely new implementation.

Lesson

Terraform was the implementation mechanism. The value of the landing zone was having a standardized and reusable architecture that could be extended consistently.

If asked: "Did you design the architecture?"

I was primarily on the implementation side, particularly the Terraform/CDKTF modules. However, I had to understand the architecture and dependencies because the modules had to fit into the overall landing zone design. I wouldn't claim that I was the sole architect of the entire landing zone. My strength was taking the architecture and turning it into reusable, deployable infrastructure-as-code.

Technical follow-ups

Why a landing zone?

Consistency, security, governance, isolation and scalability.

Why hub-and-spoke?

It separates shared services and workload networks and provides controlled connectivity between them.

What makes the implementation reusable?

Reusable modules plus region/environment-specific configuration rather than copy-pasting a complete infrastructure definition.