You'd be surprised how low the capacity of a lot of internet links is. 10Gbps is common on smaller networks - let me rephrase that, a small to medium ISP might only have 10Gbps to each of most of their peering partners. Normally, traffic is distributed, going to different places, coming from different places, and each link is partially utilized. But unusual patterns can fill up one specific link.

10Gbps is old technology now and any real ISP can probably afford 40 or 100 - for hundreds of dollars per link. But they're going to deploy that on their most utilized links first, and only if their peering partner can also afford it and exchanges enough traffic to justify it. So the smallest connections are typically going to be 10. (Lower than 10 is too small to justify a point-to-point peering at all).

If you have 10Gbps fiber at home, you could congest one of these links all by yourself.

Now this is Cloudflare talking to aws-east-1, so they should have shitloads of capacity there, probably at least 8x100 or more. But considering that AWS is the kind of environment where you can spin up 800 servers for a few hours to perform a massively parallel task, it's not surprising that someone did eventually create 800Gbps of traffic to the same place, or however much they have. Actually it's surprising it doesn't happen more often. Perhaps that's because AWS charges an arm and a leg for data transfer - 800Gbps is $5-$9 per second.

That's what started the incident.

It was prolonged by the fact that Cloudflare didn't react correctly to withdrawn BGP routes to a major peer, that the secondary routes had reduced capacity due to unaddressed problems, and basic nuisance rate limiting had to be done manually.

It seems like they just build huge peering pipes and basically just hope for the best. They've maybe gotten so used to this working that they'll let degraded "secondary" links persist for much longer than they should. It's the typical "Swiss Cheese" style of failure.

It wouldn't surprise me if the BGP routes in the DCI PNI were manually configured, since this is probably one of the most direct and important connections. I would be surprised if Cloudflare didn't have firsthand knowledge of what happened with AWS during this incident.

I think the withdrawal approach by AWS would normally work, as this action should desaturate the connections. Just really unfortunate that this caused routing through a link that was at half capacity.

The way I read the blog post, it seems they're very aware of that.

I imagine Cloudflare and AWS were on a Chime bridge while this all went down, they both have a lot at stake here.

Can we stop with the 2015 jokes already?

Perhaps they drop the client's flows on the host side.

I think you're overthinking this. Just having a per (cloudflare) customer rate limit would go a long long way.

It's load shedding, but it's weighted towards people abusing their quota usually over some rolling weighted average. The benefit is that they are dropped immediately at the edge rather than holding sockets open or using compute/resources. It usually takes 30s-1m to kick in.

There's nothing to suggest the link between Cloudflare and any other AWS region has more capacity or that there aren't more disruptive Cloudflare customers using those regions.