4 ms·

A different problem is that, at least with federal agencies, Cloudflare has a BAD name. Like unbelievably bad. They do have a FedRAMP offering as of this year..

A different problem is that, at least with federal agencies, Cloudflare has a BAD name. Like unbelievably bad. They do have a FedRAMP offering as of this year.. But I've been on calls with agencies. Dept heads, executive yuck-de-yucks. And we've gotten, "Are you using Cloudflare?" We don't, and say so. Resoundingly, we get "GOOD" We have no clue what the story and history is there. It's bad for sure. And nobody will answer why. On the commercial end, this makes sense. But damn, egress from the majors suck. But that's roach motel computing...

ren_engineer 5y ago
probably the fact Cloudflare doesn't just shut down sites at the governments request. I'd also imagine a good chunk of them have been wined and dined by Oracle, Google, Microsoft, and AWS lobbyists to think that Cloudflare is bad. I doubt non-technical federal agency heads are double checking what they are being told
rocqua 5y ago
I know there was a lot of pressure on Cloudflare to drop hosting for 8chan. And it took a long time for Cloudflare to budge. In general, I could imagine there being pressure on those grounds against using Cloudflare.
RNCTX 5y ago
I'd wager that dept heads and executive yuck-de-yucks by and large only know what they heard from other dept heads and executive yuck-de-yucks, which is that Cloudflare didn't buy into the censorship-by-boardroom-committee plans of the two American political parties over the past few years.
wp381640 5y ago
Is see this as a positive for Cloudflare
snowwrestler 5y ago
Cloudflare’s priority is growth. They intentionally take on customer risk and technical risk to try to maximize growth. As a result they incline toward hosting whoever wants to use them, and moving fast and breaking things. Neither of these align with typical federal govt approach to IT infrastructure, which emphasizes reliability and avoiding known risk. It’s just a big personality mismatch, and there’s no reason for either to resolve it. Cloudflare doesn’t need the feds, and the feds don’t need Cloudflare, at least not commercially.

ren_engineer 5y ago

probably the fact Cloudflare doesn't just shut down sites at the governments request. I'd also imagine a good chunk of them have been wined and dined by Oracle, Google, Microsoft, and AWS lobbyists to think that Cloudflare is bad. I doubt non-technical federal agency heads are double checking what they are being told

rocqua 5y ago

I know there was a lot of pressure on Cloudflare to drop hosting for 8chan. And it took a long time for Cloudflare to budge. In general, I could imagine there being pressure on those grounds against using Cloudflare.

RNCTX 5y ago

I'd wager that dept heads and executive yuck-de-yucks by and large only know what they heard from other dept heads and executive yuck-de-yucks, which is that Cloudflare didn't buy into the censorship-by-boardroom-committee plans of the two American political parties over the past few years.

wp381640 5y ago

Is see this as a positive for Cloudflare

snowwrestler 5y ago

Cloudflare’s priority is growth. They intentionally take on customer risk and technical risk to try to maximize growth. As a result they incline toward hosting whoever wants to use them, and moving fast and breaking things. Neither of these align with typical federal govt approach to IT infrastructure, which emphasizes reliability and avoiding known risk. It’s just a big personality mismatch, and there’s no reason for either to resolve it. Cloudflare doesn’t need the feds, and the feds don’t need Cloudflare, at least not commercially.