A cloud operations team is managing multiple Supervisor Clusters across two regions.

A Global Namespace in a service-mesh-driven, multi-cluster design is fundamentally anorganizational and policy boundarythat lets platform teams treat multiple Kubernetes namespaces—across multiple clusters/regions—as one logical application domain. That is whyBis correct: it defines an application boundary spanning clusters, which is exactly what “GovApp” needs when its tiers are distributed across regions but must still behave as one application. It also explains whyAis correct: the value of a Global Namespace is that you can applyconsistent identity, security, and traffic policiesacross all member namespaces and clusters, rather than configuring them separately per cluster. This supports uniform mTLS/authorization posture, consistent service-to-service access rules, and standardized routing behaviors regardless of where a service instance runs.

The other options describe outcomes that may be enabled by additional service-mesh features, but they are not the corerequirementsthat define a Global Namespace: distributed ingress/egress is not guaranteed simply by the namespace construct, automatic workload placement is typically handled by schedulers/placement engines rather than the namespace boundary, and centralized logging is an observability capability outside the namespace requirement itself.