
Cloudflare is experiencing failures in its connections to hosts - artemisbot
https://www.cloudflarestatus.com/incidents/hptvkprkvp23
======
dang
Most comments moved to
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24322861](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24322861).

------
jgrahamc
This isn't a Cloudflare-specific issue. Level 3/CenturyLink are in trouble.
Affecting other providers (see, for example, Fastly's Status page:
[https://status.fastly.com/](https://status.fastly.com/)).

@dang or another mod, would be better to link to
[https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/outages/2020-August/013187...](https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/outages/2020-August/013187.html)
as this isn't a Cloudflare issue.

~~~
1f60c
The Level3 outage thread is here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24322861](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24322861)

------
reimertz
Title needs to be updated. Issues are not limited to CloudFlare but to
CenturyLink and Level3

------
lapcatsoftware
Brilliant idea to recentralize the decentralized internet.

Edit: With more information coming in, I don't think the current issue is
specific to Cloudflare. FWIW I'm having zero issues in mid-US.

~~~
coldtea
Well, for most smaller websites using something like Cloudflare means they are
more decentralized, more easily, than less (e.g. instead of using their single
source of failure own server).

~~~
waheoo
I don't really know why we need to discuss this now but the point has nothing
to do with this.

Small sites don't really need that decentralization, sure it's nice that it's
easy but this isn't the problem.

The problem is that in aggregate you end up with an internet with a single
point of failure.

And even if as it is now isn't a big problem, who's to say that one day it is
a huge problem?

~~~
coldtea
> _The problem is that in aggregate you end up with an internet with a single
> point of failure._

And the other problem, which I'm pointing at, is that without using something
like Cloudflare, you end giving yourself more points of failure (more
pressure, DDoS, lack of easy load balancing, most costs and devops to
implement those yourself, etc).

And each site doesn't care if 10000 others go down together -- if anything
that's good, if their competitors go down for a while. They care for their own
status...

> _And even if as it is now isn 't a big problem, who's to say that one day it
> is a huge problem?_

I'd say periodic mass failures should inform our usage and dependance patterns
of the internet so that we're not 100% dependent on it 24/7, in which case
sites going down together never becomes "a huge problem".

In other words, one way to never have it be a huge problem is to make the
internet perfectly decentralized (which is impossible anyway -- first because
sites people care about is a power law distribution, e.g. Google, MS, Amazon,
stores, app stores, etc, so if Google goes down there's a disruption to
billions of people, even if millions of lesser sites are up that much fewer
care about, -- and second because critical instrastructure is shared, e.g.
undersea cables etc.

The other way to never have it be a huge problem is to learn and adapt to
situations when sites might be done, and build resilient alternative ways of
operation (analogue, if need be).

------
ahphaiT1
As a Tor user and privacy maximalist, I see no difference from usual.

What you are experiencing today is the normal state of the nowadays web when
you refuse to be tracked.

~~~
sammy2244
You are cringe

