Incident Library
Applied filters ComponentBGP routingSymptomPacket lossFactorExcessive blast radiusClear allEvery case under the filters, with no sentence; newest first.
Suggested filters Search, and the values found in your words appear here.

Graph

  • Root cause
  • Component
  • Symptom
  • Contributing factor
  • Case

Cases4 cases

1 to 4 of 4

  1. 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.

    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
    Component
    Contributing factor
    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.

  2. Symptoms

    On 18 October 2024, from 7:50 to 8:01 UTC, about 25% of the hypervisors in Scaleway's FR-PAR-1 availability zone lost VPC connectivity with the rest of the region, and products that use VPC failed with them. Public internet connectivity and Elastic Metal VPC connectivity were not affected.

    Trigger

    At 6:20 UTC a Top of Rack switch in FR-PAR-1 had a software crash. One of the two BGP route reflectors for VPC ran on a hypervisor in that rack and was left in an abnormal state.

    Root cause
    Component
    Contributing factor
    Detection

    Health-check monitoring on both route reflectors detected the anomaly, and the Scaleway Customer Excellence and SRE teams detected the customer impact and opened an incident.

    Remediation
    • Fixed both VPC route reflectors by manual action
    Action items
    • Fixed the autohealing mechanism that had failed to fix route reflectors stuck in a stale state; the fix is https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/pull/17163
    • Run different software versions on the route reflectors so a single bug cannot stop several instances
    • Investigate the software issue that left the route reflectors in a stale state
  3. Symptoms

    From 07:08 UTC on 25 January 2023, customers saw long network latency and timeouts when connecting to resources in Azure regions and to other Microsoft services such as Microsoft 365 and Power Platform. Microsoft's monitoring detected DNS and WAN issues from 07:11 UTC.

    Trigger

    A network engineer adding capacity to the global WAN in Madrid ran a step of a recently changed standard operating procedure that purged the IGP database; on the router manufacturer involved, that command runs on all IGP-joined routers instead of only the local one.

    Root cause
    Component
    Contributing factor
    Detection

    Monitoring detected DNS and WAN issues from 07:11 UTC and alerted the on-call engineers within 5 minutes of the command being run. The team reviewed all recent changes and identified the command by 08:20 UTC. The engineer making the change was not informed of the alerts because of the unqualified changes to the SOP.

    Remediation
    • Restarted by hand the paused WAN health and traffic engineering systems, which ended the remaining packet loss
    Action items
    • Audit and block similar widespread-impact commands across all three vendors for all WAN router roles
    • Give on-call engineers real-time visibility of approved and unqualified activity on network devices
    • Run regular mandatory operational training and attestation of following all SOPs
    • Have the Change Advisory Board review all SOPs still pending qualification within 30 days
  4. Symptoms

    On Sunday 2 June 2019, with user impact beginning between 11:47 and 11:49 US/Pacific, Google Cloud projects in several US regions saw elevated packet loss from network congestion, and some regions became unreachable. Customers saw higher latency, intermittent errors and lost connectivity to instances in us-central1, us-east1, us-east4, us-west2, northamerica-northeast1 and southamerica-east1, while us-west1, Europe and Asia had no regional congestion.

    Trigger

    At 11:45 US/Pacific a relatively rare type of datacenter maintenance event started in one physical location, and the automation that runs it descheduled logical clusters that also held network control plane jobs in other physical locations.

    Root cause
    Component
    Contributing factor
    Detection

    Google engineers were alerted to the failure two minutes after it began and started the incident process used for the most serious production incidents. The first customer notice appeared on the status page at 12:53 US/Pacific.

    Remediation
    • Lowered the priority of less critical network traffic classes to reduce congestion
    • Halted the datacenter automation software responsible for the maintenance event
    • Rescheduled the network control plane and its supporting infrastructure in each location
    • Rebuilt and redistributed the lost network control plane configuration, rolling it out from 14:03
    • Directed service traffic away from the affected regions
    • Moved the Cloud VPN control plane in three regions out of its fail-safe state
    Action items
    • Keep the maintenance automation off until safeguards stop it descheduling jobs in several physical locations at once
    • Harden the cluster management software to reject such requests whatever their origin
    • Reconfigure the network control plane to reject maintenance requests of the type involved
    • Make the network control plane in each location persist its configuration
    • Let the network stay in fail static mode longer when the control plane is lost
    • Review, update and test emergency response tooling and procedures, including customer communication tooling, for such network failures
    • Extend continuous disaster recovery testing to this and similarly catastrophic failures
Check your cluster for this

These 4 cases involve BGP routing and Backbone network (WAN). kubegap audits a Kubernetes cluster for gaps like these, read-only, from Claude Code or Codex; its checks cite public reports like the ones in this library.

By root cause3