Cases3 cases

1 to 3 of 3

1. IL-0350 Hosts in an IONOS TXL cluster lost connectivity when an InfiniBand fabric resweep failed on a full multicast table

   IONOS Cloud2026

   Symptoms

   On 3 March 2026, during a scheduled maintenance to replace a faulty switch in a cluster in IONOS Cloud's TXL data center, monitoring alerts fired and the hosts in that cluster lost network connectivity. Customers saw intermittent network degradation or outages, and the Data Center Designer (DCD) web frontend and the AI Model Hub became unreachable.

   Network unreachableLink flappingService outage

   Trigger

   During a scheduled maintenance to replace a faulty switch, Topology 2 of 2 in the affected cluster was disabled as planned, and a link flap on a switch in Topology 1 then flooded the InfiniBand control plane with alerts and started a fabric resweep.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   InfiniBand fabricNetwork control plane (SDN)BGP routingNIC, cable and switch port linkModel hubDatabase

   Contributing factor

   Automation amplificationExcessive blast radius

   Detection

   IONOS began investigating monitoring alerts in TXL; the first status update was posted at 11:36 UTC.

   Remediation

   • Switched from the affected control plane to its standby
   • Rebooted the locked-up gateways
   • Recovered Topology 1 from the scheduled maintenance
   • Paused provisioning in the cluster that had a backlog of queued jobs
   • Re-enabled provisioning once network connectivity improved and watched job execution
   • Re-established connectivity for the systems that support the DCD

   Action items

   • Adjusted the control-plane configuration to use less aggressive failover timers and reduced heavy sweep activity, lowering the load on the forwarding table
   • Reduced the number of multicast group memberships to relieve the forwarding table
   • Set up continuous monitoring of forwarding table use and control-plane memory with alerts before capacity limits are reached
   • Move the control plane to dedicated high-performance servers, separate from data-plane traffic
   • Audit IPv6 configurations and IPoIB driver settings
   • Modernise the interconnect fabric, including switches, gateways and drivers
   • Hardened IAM maintenance protocols so that critical identity services keep working when the primary Cloud APIs are temporarily unavailable
   • Move IAM to a dedicated platform without a dependency on the standard managed Kubernetes clusters
   • Introduce a dedicated provisioning provider for DBaaS and Managed Kubernetes
   • Add automated circuit breakers to the provisioning engine against overload and queue buildup from self-healing services
   • Improve visibility and control over job execution and prioritisation in the provisioning queue
   • Change the provisioning queue architecture to decouple services and reduce spillover

   Lessons

   IONOS identified the linking of services through the shared provisioning queue as a key reason the degradation lasted as long as it did. Alongside making each service more robust, it is decoupling the provisioning queue and addressing dependencies between services to reduce the blast radius of future incidents.

   View case
2. IL-0564 Linode's Miami, Milan and Sao Paulo data centers had packet loss as traffic moved onto congested alternate paths

   Linode2025

   Symptoms

   Customers using Linode's US-MIA (Miami) and IT-MIL (Milan) data centers saw packet loss and brief performance problems on 14 September 2025 from 17:42 to 18:43 UTC. BR-GRU (Sao Paulo) had the same packet loss on 15 September 2025 from 01:44 to 04:22 UTC.

   Packet loss

   Trigger

   A gradual increase in prefixes pushed the routing between the core router and the edge router past the maximum number of permitted prefixes.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   BGP routingBackbone network (WAN)

   Contributing factor

   –

   Remediation

   • Raised the prefix limit on all the data center routers

   Action items

   • Raise the thresholds of the sessions between Akamai's backbone and the data center ECOR routers
   • Improve the existing alerting and check its severity before limits are reached, with escalation to the right team for immediate action

   View case
3. IL-0341 Traffic between Cloudflare and AWS us-east-1 had high latency, packet loss and origin failures for almost four hours

   Cloudflare2025

   Symptoms

   From 16:27 UTC on 21 August 2025, users connecting to Cloudflare from servers in AWS us-east-1, or receiving connections from Cloudflare there, saw high latency, packet loss and failures to reach origins. Cloudflare's network team was alerted to internal congestion in Ashburn (IAD) at 16:44 UTC.

   Packet lossHigh latencyIntermittent timeouts

   Trigger

   At about 16:27 UTC a single customer began sending many requests from AWS us-east-1 to Cloudflare for objects in Cloudflare's cache, doubling the total traffic from Cloudflare to AWS.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   Transit gateway or network interconnectBGP routingCDN and edge network

   Contributing factor

   No headroomHarmful manual actionExcessive blast radius

   Detection

   Cloudflare's network team was alerted to internal congestion in Ashburn (IAD) at 16:44 UTC, and an incident was raised for customer impact at 17:45 UTC.

   Remediation

   • Rate limited the single customer whose traffic caused the surge
   • Took further traffic engineering actions that fully resolved the congestion
   • Asked AWS to revert its BGP prefix withdrawals, which AWS finished at 20:07 UTC

   Action items

   • Build a mechanism to deprioritise a customer's traffic when it congests the network enough to affect others
   • Speed up the Data Center Interconnect upgrades to add network capacity
   • Work with AWS so the two companies' BGP traffic engineering actions do not conflict
   • Build a traffic management system that gives each customer a network resource budget and automates the manual actions used here

   Lessons

   Cloudflare concludes that it must isolate customers better so that no single customer can take over shared network resources and degrade the platform for others, and that its network needs enough capacity to meet demand. It describes the outage as the result of insufficient network congestion management during an unusual high-traffic event.

   View case

By root cause1