[berkes]

But the nature of a CDN and most other products CF offers, is central by nature.

If you switch from CF to the next CF competitor, you've not improved this dependency.

The alternative here, is complex or even non-existing. Complex would be some system that allows you to hotswap a CDN, or to have fallback DDOS protection services, or to build you own in-house. Which, IMO, is the worst to do if your business is elsewhere. If you sell, say, petfood online, the dependency-risk that comes with a vendor like CF, quite certainly is less than the investment needed- and risk associted with- building a DDOS protection or CDN on your own; all investment that's not directed to selling more pet-food or get higher margins at doing so.

[altmanaltman]

yeah there is no incentive to do a CDN in house, esp for businesses that are not tech-oriented. And the costs of the occasional outage has not really been higher than the cost of doing it in-house. And I'm sure other CDNs gets outages as well, just CF is so huge everyone gets to know about it and it makes the news

[agnivade]

You can load-balance between CDN vendors as well

[sofixa]

With what? The only (sensible) way is DNS, but then your DNS provider is your SPOF. Amazon used to run 2 DNS providers (separate NS from 2 vendors for all of AWS), but when one failed, there was still a massive outage.

[otikik]

Then your load balancer becomes the single point of failure.

[roryirvine]

BGP Anycast will let you dynamically route traffic into multiple front-end load balancers - this is how GSLB is usually done.

Needs an ASN and a decent chunk of PI address space, though, so not exactly something a random startup will ever be likely to play with.

[DaanDL]

Then add a load balancer in front of your load balancer, duh. /s

[Zambyte]

IPFS is a decentralized CDN.