Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cloudflare took down our website

robindev.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 483 posts

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#261

Post by CuriousCosmic »

Hikikomori wrote: post #247
CuriousCosmic wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's 10k a month for them to set up a dedicated IP address pool so that they could BYOIP and buy their own IP addresses instead of getting the IP addresses in cloudflare's main IP address pool repeatedly banned or reputation harmed. i.e. it's a $10k fee for maintaining the infrastructure for a quarantine around their services

Why can't they communicate than then? BYOIP also costs nothing to produce.

> Why can't they communicate than then?

They did. Repeatedly. You see it mentioned in the few emails the OP chose to share. But they also didn't share the other communication they had over the month long discussion they had with cloudflare.

> BYOIP also costs nothing to produce.

That's not really accurate. Cloudflare is entirely built around one big unified anycast network. If you want to provision an entirely separate network that maintains all the same features they are using from the main cloudflare network, that's going to require provisioning a lot of cpu time and routing table slots at a lot of different sites plus whatever admin and engineer overhead comes from maintaining this quarantined service.

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#262

Post by nolverostae »

CuriousCosmic wrote: post #261
Hikikomori wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't they communicate than then? BYOIP also costs nothing to produce.

> Why can't they communicate than then? They did. Repeatedly. You see it mentioned in the few emails the OP chose to share. But they also didn't share the other communication they had over the month long discussion they had with cloudflare. > BYOIP also costs nothing to produce. That's not really accurate. Cloudflare is entirely built around one big unified anycast network. If you want to provision an entirely separa…

This is literally all written communication they gave us. The only other thing was calls. Not calls with anyone that had any knowledge about what any issues were, but calls with sales.

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#263

Post by GeoAtreides »

Xeamek wrote: post #189

Can any1 explain how HN algo works that this post, which at time of writing has 355p, 180comments while being posted 1 hour ago, isn't even on first page (ranked 31)???

Remember, on HN there is such a thing as commenting too fast

If a thread is too interesting, it gets penalized, can't have too many people commenting on an exciting topic

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#264

Post by user_7832 »

CtrlAltDelete51 wrote: post #233
CamelCaseName wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've noticed that cloudflare complaint threads get flagged with surprising and unwarranted regularity.

Almost, like … maybe one of the “protection” providers might have ways to suppress bad media? puts on tin foil hat and looks around nervously

A more charitable interpretation is that lots of techy HN'ers would rather defend CF against an unknown company, as some sort of tribal allegiance - the same way Apple has a huge cult following. Nonetheless the end result (flagging/downranking) is wrong - hell, I had to find this thread by going to my previous comments as I couldn't find it on the front 2 pages. If that isn't considered an abuse of systems (again, charitably speaking, unintentionally), I don't know what is.

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#265

Post by randunel »

This post was definitely demoted by HN. It stayed in the first position for less than 5 minutes and, as it quickly gathered upvotes, it jumped straight into 24th and quickly fell off the first page as it got 200 or so more points in less than an hour.

I'm 80% confident HN tried to hide this link. It's the fastest downhill I've noticed on here, and I've been lurking and commenting for longer than 10 years.

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#266

Post by sgjohnson »

CuriousCosmic wrote: post #261
Hikikomori wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't they communicate than then? BYOIP also costs nothing to produce.

> Why can't they communicate than then? They did. Repeatedly. You see it mentioned in the few emails the OP chose to share. But they also didn't share the other communication they had over the month long discussion they had with cloudflare. > BYOIP also costs nothing to produce. That's not really accurate. Cloudflare is entirely built around one big unified anycast network. If you want to provision an entirely separa…

The costs for announcing the customer's IPs and making sure that only they are the ones actually sitting on them would be minuscule. Nowhere near $10k/mo. Maybe $100/mo.

Anycast/unicast changes nothing here. Anycast simply means that the same prefix is announced in multiple different PoPs.

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#267

Post by kayodelycaon »

CtrlAltDelete51 wrote: post #233
CamelCaseName wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've noticed that cloudflare complaint threads get flagged with surprising and unwarranted regularity.

Almost, like … maybe one of the “protection” providers might have ways to suppress bad media? puts on tin foil hat and looks around nervously

I don’t think we need any conspiracy theories. I can easily see people getting tired of these kind of articles and the predictable torrent of outraged comments.

They are valuable in keeping people aware of what’s going on. But only to a point and people will endlessly argue over where that point is and scream censorship and over ups by corporate interests.

It gets rather grating after a while. Even more so when I suspect an article is omitting key facts to generate the attention they want.

I haven’t flagged this article but I can easily see why people would.

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#269

Post by EasyMark »

jsheard wrote: post #149
endisneigh wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder why they don’t just have clear limits - seems like it would make it easier to grok.

I think it being difficult to grok is the point, if they laid down exactly how much they want you to pay for bandwidth then it would be easy to go price shopping between them and the competition. But when it's "free" bandwidth, with a fuzzy line where it stops being free, and ambiguous pricing when it does, they can hook people in with a great deal and try to shake them down later. I still encounter people who refuse…

I suspect this is the answer, and it's just "momentum". once you're at a location and you're doing considerable "stuff" the move becomes painful and $200 more a month doesn't seem a lot if you're a company, but if they do that every 6 months or so before you know it's $1000 a month

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#270

Post by EasyMark »

j-bos wrote: post #155
rrr_oh_man wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuine question: Why did you use `grok` in that context?

Under what contexts are you familiar with the term grok?

or don't feel like using an online dictionary when it's quicker than typing a question especially when you take feedback time into consideration. I just don't grok why anyone would do that.
Post reply on HN