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