1

Question

Can we make a route table which has both igw-id (Internet gateway ID) and vgw-id (VPN gateway ID)? If we can't/shouldn't do it, why?

Example

10.0.0.0/16 --> Local  
172.16.0.0/12 --> vgw-id  
0.0.0.0/0 --> igw-id

Reference

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/vpc/latest/userguide/VPC_Scenario3.html
(I mainly refer to "Overview" section and "Alternate routing" section.)

Explanation

This webpage above shows the scenario where one VPC has one public subnet, one private subnet and one VPN gateway. In this example, the VPN gateway is always accessed from instances in the private subnet (meaning its route table doesn't have the record "igw-id"). I wonder why one route table doesn't have both "igw-id" and "vgw-id".

dmjy
  • 1,183
  • 3
  • 10
  • 26

3 Answers3

2

Yes, we can have both igw and vgw. In fact, the example above would be a perfect for a public subnet which can connect to your corporate network through direct connect or site-to-site VPN, and also have internet access and be accessible from the internet.

Now, weather you would want this or not, it is an architectural decision. In the example scenario given by AWS, they try to segregate subnets by having a public subnet (with the igw) which can contain services accessible from the internet and a private subnet for other backend services (exmaple: databases). These backend services can be accessed from the corporate network using a site-to-site VPN, this is why the subnet has the vgw.

Ervin Szilagyi
  • 14,274
  • 2
  • 25
  • 40
1

Yes, you can have a route table with the 3 routes you specified. However, bear in mind that with a route 0.0.0.0/0 --> igw-id, hosts on the internet can initiate connections with the instances in that subnet. Typically, you would want to secure the instances in a subnet that you allow a route to your on-premise network, and not expose it to the internet. If these instances require to connect to the internet, AWS recommends NAT devices for your VPC.

junkangli
  • 1,152
  • 7
  • 14
1

While it's technically possible, the main reason not to do that is due to a concept called network segmentation. It basically follows a "defense in depth" approach that network layers should be separated in a "public" and a "private" part (more zones are also often used like third tier for data storage and a fourth for infra used to manage the other three tiers).

Since your public subnet is directly exposed to the internet, it'most likely to be breached when you misconfigure something. If you would have routes in your public subnet to your VPN gateway, a single breach enables an attacker to attack your on-prem environment as well.

This is why its best practice to add one or two network tiers to your architecture. Even when the public tier is compromised, they still need to get into an instance in the private tier before they can attack your on prem environment.

It's recommended that your public subnet only contains an elastic load balancer or similar when possible. Its a pretty good way to reduce the attack surface of your application servers (less chance that you expose an unwanted port etc.).

A nice guide on this can be found here. It doenst include vpns, but you can condisider them part of the app layer.

LRutten
  • 1,634
  • 7
  • 17