Federation allows for distributing control and services across not just multiple regions, but multiple providers and environments as well. This is a critical capability for today's multi-cloud and bare metal deployments, and the idea has gained momentum for several practical reasons such as compliance, resilience, and latency.
Now, more than ever, teams are expected to support multi-cloud deployments, navigate regional compliance requirements, and deliver those low latency experiences to users globally. When you stack it up against traditional centralized control models, the flaws in monolithic, single-region architectures really stand out — and it's clear there's a lot to gain from moving toward a more federated approach.
But what does it take to move to a more federated model and how do organizations avoid the pitfalls that can come with such a move?
Let's explore!
Long before the advent of DevOps, infrastructure management was centralized and monolithic, relying on bare metal servers in on-prem datacenters. Organizations started moving to the cloud to unlock the power of scalability and moving expenses to operations instead of capex. Early cloud use was still largely regionally constrained and the move towards a more federated model was a slow burn that took years to become more of the norm.
Between 2013-2017, as organizations opened their eyes to the power of containers, there was a massive push towards migration and adoption of container technology. The industry started to accept the power of cloud-native paradigms, as teams used containers and orchestration tools to implement far more dynamic architectures and pipelines. Kubernetes was popular early on to manage deployments and orchestration — but introduced loads of complexity, especially across multi-cloud and multi-region setups. Docker Swarm was also loved by the community but never really made it to production quality for most serious organizations and was eventually sold off to Mirantis when Docker expelled their cloud business unit. This led many organizations pursuing federation to look for a simpler, more elegant Kubernetes alternative like Cycle.
As systems scale and diversify, there are several pressures pushing organizations toward a more federated model:
The result?
Federation has emerged as a way to distribute control and services while optimizing for compliance, performance, and resilience needs.
All that flexibility must come with a tradeoff, right? Well, it is software, and that's just the name of the game. Let's take a look at the pros and cons of federation.
| Pros | Cons |
|---|---|
| Closer to the user, more localized performance | Increase in operational complexity |
| Resilient to provider outages | Tooling and processes may fragment |
| Much better compliance stance with local regulation | Debugging and support become more difficult to maintain |
| Less vendor lock, better localization | Consistency and standardization can become burdensome |
In the grand scheme of things, centralized platforms offer more uniformity and federated systems offer more flexibility. The real challenge is to capture the benefits of both approaches without taking on the downsides.
The Cycle control plane is federated in the sense that it is run across more than 5 infrastructure providers with multiple copies of each of our core services running at all times. Want to take a look at the services? Check out our status page!
However, we are still centralized in the sense that the platform is centrally maintained and standardized. This is how we provide our end users with the benefits of federation without the operational ruckus that poorly executed federation can be.
There are several other benefits to consider here:
There is no bespoke tooling or interface depending on where in the world you're consuming Cycle from. It's a single, unified, interface that users interact with through either our portal or the API.
Many of the competitors in our space, like Kubernetes for example, force users to adopt a completely fragmented ecosystem of tools. You can see most of them at the CNCF landscape page.
The Cycle platform is centralized in the sense that we maintain and update the platform. Cycle users don't have to deal with managing the control plane in any way. This eliminates the burden of manual updates, patches, and the massive time suck that would come with coordinating these things across regions and continents.
The Cycle model is designed for users to bring their own infrastructure. Not only does it support hyperscalars, but you can also integrate with on-prem infrastructure and bare metal seamlessly. There is 0 additional lift to consume bare metal on Cycle… None
Whether you're running containers on bare metal or integrating with public cloud providers, Cycle's unified orchestration ensures a LowOps experience without sacrificing performance.
Security policies, access controls, and updates are centrally enforced through the platform — regardless of where workloads run. Cycle's closed-source model allows tight control over the codebase and update pipeline, reducing fragmentation and patch drift.
When things break, Cycle provides one point of support. There's no finger-pointing across vendors or toolchains, because Cycle.io maintains the entire platform — even as services are federated
Cycle.io's federated control plane operates under a central standard — Cycle.io owns and operates all control services, ensuring that all users get the same behavior, security, and performance, regardless of the underlying infrastructure.
Unlike Kubernetes-based alternatives, which often require intricate tuning and fragmented toolchains, Cycle.io's platform enforces central policies and orchestration standards — delivering simplicity without compromise.
💡 Interested in trying the Cycle platform? Create your account today! Want to drop in and have a chat with the Cycle team? We'd love to have you join our public Cycle Slack community!
