[nuker]

> ran up against a lot of its limitations. Maximum file size. Maximum resource count. Automatic rollbacks of THE WHOLE STACK

I totally can see where this is coming from :) CFN is best used as separate templates/stacks for parts of the solution, not the whole solution rolled in a single template. Reusable is the key word here, and Parameters. Let me try a city example. Have separate templates for a school, fire departnemt and house block. Build all Detroit schools using the same school.yml template, just supply different parameters for each. Don't copy-paste code from school.yml into detroit.yml. Actually, there should be no detroit.yml, leave city level to CI/CD job.

> I have to say google_compute or azure_load_balancer or aws_dns

Multicloud? It rarely makes sense. All you get is triple the infra code, triple monitoring tools, triple devops competence requirements. Properly designed solution with HA and AZ/regional redundancy is sufficient on a single cloud platform.

[web007]

I'm not suggesting multicloud as in using more than one at a time, I mean porting to another cloud or defining some OSS infrastructure in $magic_terraform that any cloud user could deploy without translation.

It would be limited to least-common denominator just because of the vagueness of objects that it would support, but the example I suggested would be incredibly useful.

[nuker]

> It would be limited to least-common denominator ..

Thats exactly why it is not useful. You design your solution using all features of the LB, solution using only basic ones will be meh.

[kubanczyk]

> Multicloud? It rarely makes sense.

It tends to be badly implemented, but it makes a ton of sense as a strategy.