Post Meta-Data

Kubernetes Control Plane: Architectural Challenges and the Path to True High Availability

Introduction: The Promise and Reality

Kubernetes has established itself as the de-facto infrastructure tool-set for building highly scalable and reliable cloud services. Organizations worldwide have embraced its declarative configuration model, powerful orchestration capabilities, and extensive ecosystem. However, beneath the surface of Kubernetes’ impressive application-layer capabilities lies a less-discussed reality: the control plane infrastructure contains fundamental architectural weaknesses that create single points of failure.

This article examines the architectural challenges inherent in Kubernetes control plane design, explores why vendor “solutions” often exacerbate rather than solve these problems, and proposes a fundamental rethinking of how we approach infrastructure reliability.

This document is a work in progress and may change significantly.

The Problem: Control Plane Single Points of Failure

While Kubernetes excels at orchestrating application workloads with high availability, its own control plane architecture is not truly fail-safe. Multiple components within the control plane represent potential single points of failure:

Core Control Plane Components

The Kubernetes control plane consists of several critical components:

• API Server: The central management entity that exposes the Kubernetes API
• etcd: The distributed key-value store maintaining cluster state
• Controller Manager: Runs controller processes managing cluster state
• Scheduler: Assigns pods to nodes based on resource requirements
• Cloud Controller Manager: Interfaces with cloud provider APIs

Each of these components, despite being designed for distribution, can become bottlenecks or single points of failure in practice.

Where Things Break Down

Configuration Complexity: Running control plane components in truly highly-available configurations requires extensive expertise and careful tuning. Default configurations often leave gaps in failure coverage.

Network Dependencies: Control plane components rely on network connectivity that may itself not be truly redundant. Network partitions can render control plane components unreachable even if they’re still running.

State Synchronization: etcd, while distributed, requires quorum for operations. Improper configuration or network issues can result in split-brain scenarios or complete unavailability.

Cascading Failures: A failure in one control plane component often triggers cascading failures in others, as components depend on each other for critical functionality.

The Workaround Trap: Vendor Solutions Make It Worse

The Digital Ocean Example

Digital Ocean and similar managed Kubernetes providers promise to solve single-point-of-failure issues by duplicating all control plane pods. On the surface, this sounds ideal—run multiple instances of each control plane component across different nodes or availability zones for redundancy.

The Problem: This approach is not truly Kubernetes-internal and creates new failure modes:

1. Abstraction Layer Risks: The duplication happens outside Kubernetes’ native mechanisms, introducing a layer of vendor-specific infrastructure that has its own failure modes.

2. Incomplete Coverage: Vendors often miss subtle Kubernetes internals. Not all failure scenarios are covered, and some edge cases can still result in control plane unavailability.

3. Hidden Complexity: The duplicated control plane appears simple from the user’s perspective, but the underlying implementation introduces complexity that’s invisible until something breaks.

4. Limited Control: Users cannot inspect, modify, or troubleshoot the vendor’s control plane implementation, creating a black box that fails in unpredictable ways.

The Fundamental Issue

Vendor solutions attempt to patch architectural problems with operational complexity. Instead of addressing the root causes of control plane fragility, they add layers of abstraction that introduce new failure modes while failing to eliminate the original ones.

What Actually Works: Application Layer Resilience

Interestingly, Kubernetes demonstrates excellent reliability at the application layer:

Multi-Datacenter Pod Distribution

Distributing application pods across multiple datacenters or availability zones works remarkably well:

• Kubernetes schedulers can spread pods based on topology constraints
• Pod anti-affinity rules prevent co-location of replicas
• Multiple availability zones provide true failure isolation
• Application-layer replication and consensus protocols work effectively

External Load Balancing

When load balancing is handled by external entities—particularly robust hardware solutions—the results are excellent:

Hardware Load Balancers: Solutions like F5 integrated with OpenStack or similar infrastructure provide:

• True redundancy with multi-chassis configurations
• Sub-second failover times
• Hardware-level health checking
• Consistent behavior under nearly all failure scenarios

But still, Kubernetes’ internal pod and network management plane has several severe drawbacks.

The Network Plane Problem: Packet Processing Ambiguity

Routing and Firewalling Complexity

Kubernetes implements multiple networking mechanisms using classical pods:

• CNI Plugins: Software-defined networking implemented in pods
• Kube-proxy: Load balancing and service routing in software
• Network Policy Controllers: Firewalling implemented via pods
• Ingress Controllers: HTTP/HTTPS routing in application pods

The Core Issue: From a network packet’s perspective, it’s extremely difficult to determine which controller pod(s) are responsible for processing. This creates several problems:

Packet Path Ambiguity

When a packet enters a Kubernetes cluster:

1. Multiple Processing Layers: The packet may traverse multiple pods (ingress → service mesh → kube-proxy → application)
2. Distributed State: Each layer maintains its own state, potentially inconsistent with others
3. Race Conditions: During pod restarts or scaling events, packets may be dropped or misrouted
4. No Clear Ownership: Unlike traditional networking where routing tables clearly define packet flow, Kubernetes spreads this logic across numerous pods

Software Load Balancing Limitations

Load balancing implemented in software pods is not 100% fail-safe:

Performance Overhead: Software load balancers consume CPU and memory, competing with application workloads.

Limited Throughput: Even with modern kernel bypass techniques (XDP, eBPF), software load balancing has throughput limits compared to hardware ASICs.

Failure Modes: Software crashes, memory leaks, or configuration errors can break load balancing. Unlike hardware with redundant components, software failures require pod restarts.

State Synchronization: Distributed software load balancers must synchronize state (connection tracking, session affinity), introducing latency and potential inconsistency.

Control Plane Monitoring: Repeating Old Mistakes

Kubernetes Monitoring Architecture

Kubernetes uses monitoring pods inside its control plane (often in a different IP network) to check if infrastructure pods are running and whether they need scaling up or down.

Key Components:

• Metrics Server: Collects resource metrics from kubelets
• Health Check Probes: Liveness and readiness checks for pods
• Cluster Autoscaler: Scales nodes based on resource demands
• Horizontal Pod Autoscaler: Scales pods based on metrics

Circular Dependency Architecture:

┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                    Kubernetes Control Plane                   │
│    ┌─────────────┐    ┌─────────────┐    ┌─────────────┐      │
│    │   Metrics   │    │   Health    │    │  Cluster    │      │
│    │   Server    │    │   Probes    │    │ Autoscaler  │      │
│    │    Pod      │    │    Pod      │    │    Pod      │      │
│    └──────┬──────┘    └──────┬──────┘    └──────┬──────┘      │
│           │                  │                  │             │
│           └────────┬─────────┴────────┬─────────┘             │
│                    ↓     monitors     ↓                       │
│  ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐  │
│  │                   Infrastructure Pods                   │  │
│  │        ┌─────────┐   ┌─────────┐   ┌─────────┐          │  │
│  │        │   CNI   │   │  Kube-  │   │ Network │          │  │
│  │        │ Plugin  │   │  Proxy  │   │ Policy  │          │  │
│  │        └────┬────┘   └────┬────┘   └────┬────┘          │  │
│  │             └─────┬───────┴──────┬──────┘               │  │
│  └───────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────────────┘  │
│                      ↓   manages    ↓                         │
│  ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐  │
│  │                 Pod Network Layer                       │  │
│  └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘  │
└───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

The Heartbeat / STONITH Problem

In my view, this system conceptually approximates early Linux heartbeat and STONITH (Shoot The Other Node In The Head) mechanisms, which, over time and in production deployments, revealed significant limitations in terms of robustness and reliability.

Historical Context: Early high-availability clustering solutions relied on heartbeat mechanisms to detect node failures. When a heartbeat was missed, the cluster would “fence” or “STONITH” the unresponsive node to prevent split-brain scenarios.

Why This Failed in Practice:

1. False Positives: Network hiccups or temporary load spikes caused false failure detection
2. Split-Brain Scenarios: Network partitions led to multiple nodes believing they were the sole survivor
3. Cascading Failures: STONITH actions could trigger additional failures in interconnected systems
4. Recovery Complexity: Bringing fenced nodes back online required manual intervention

Kubernetes Repeats the Pattern:

Modern Kubernetes monitoring suffers from similar issues:

• Probe-Based Health Checking: Relies on network connectivity for liveness/readiness probes
• Timeout-Based Decisions: Missed timeouts trigger pod restarts or evictions
• Network Dependency: Monitoring infrastructure itself relies on network connectivity that may be compromised
• Cascading Restarts: Failed health checks can trigger pod restarts, which trigger new health checks, creating restart loops

The Fundamental Flaw: Using software to monitor software, over networks that software manages, creates circular dependencies that inevitably fail under stress.

This architectural pattern has proven problematic in production environments worldwide.

Vendor Solutions: Missing the Point

The Duplication Fallacy

Digital Ocean and similar providers promise to fix single-point-of-failure issues by duplicating the control plane. As mentioned earlier, this is not Kubernetes-internal and misses critical aspects.

What Vendors Miss:

1. Internal Dependencies: Kubernetes components have complex dependencies. Simply duplicating them doesn’t guarantee proper failover.
2. Network Partition Handling: Duplicated control planes can disagree during network splits, leading to inconsistent cluster state.
3. Resource Contention: Multiple control plane instances compete for resources, potentially degrading performance.
4. Version Skew: Managing multiple control plane instances during upgrades introduces version compatibility challenges.
5. State Consistency: Ensuring etcd clusters remain consistent across duplicated control planes requires careful tuning that vendors may not expose.

Dozens of Use Cases Missed: I tend to say there are dozens of use-cases where Digital Ocean and similar vendors missed some Kubernetes internals. Edge cases, upgrade scenarios, and complex networking configurations often reveal gaps in vendor implementations.

Comparison: Why Hardware Gets It Right

Scalable Distributed Hardware Switches

Hardware switches solve infrastructure reliability problems that Kubernetes internal networking pod-to-pod communication struggles with:

LACP and Bonding Across Multiple Switch Nodes

Link Aggregation Control Protocol (LACP) or Cisco PaGP (Port Aggregation Protocol) combined with Switch Stacking provides:

• True Redundancy: Multiple physical switches act as a single logical switch
• Transparent Failover: Link failures are handled in hardware with sub-millisecond convergence
• Load Distribution: Traffic is automatically balanced across multiple links
• No Single Point of Failure: Either switch can handle the full load if its partner fails

Robust Hardware Switches: Multi-ASIC, Multi-PSU

Hardware switches are designed for reliability from the ground up:

Multiple ASICs (Application-Specific Integrated Circuits):

• Redundant packet processing silicon
• Failure of one ASIC doesn’t stop packet forwarding
• Seamless switchover between processing units
• No software dependencies for basic functionality

Multiple Power Supplies:

• Redundant PSUs with automatic failover
• Hot-swappable for maintenance without downtime
• Independent failure domains (separate power feeds)
• Load sharing for thermal efficiency

Result: Hardware switches stay in the exact operational mode before an outage. There’s no restart, no state loss, no configuration reload—just continued operation.

Hardware redundancy provides true reliability at the infrastructure level.

Control Plane Single-Point-Of-Failure By Design

In contrast, Kubernetes control plane is architecturally predisposed to single points of failure:

• Software Restarts: Failed components must restart, losing in-memory state
• State Reconstruction: Components must rebuild state from etcd or other sources after restart
• Leader Election Delays: Components using leader election (scheduler, controller manager) experience gaps in functionality during re-election
• Network Dependencies: Control plane components require network connectivity to function, creating circular dependencies with network management components

The Fundamental Difference: Hardware solutions provide continuous operation through redundancy, while software solutions provide eventual recovery through restarts.

Interim Status / Conclusion

So far, we have analyzed the following:

• Kubernetes excels at dynamically handling load and scaling pods up or down, especially when combined with external hardware-based load balancers.
• However, despite these strengths, the current software load balancing still operates with single‑point‑of‑failure characteristics.
• In addition, the design of the management-plane pod scaling (up/down) and its global inter-communication introduces several further single points of failure.
• Beyond that, internal networking (routing, firewalling) and the data plane are even more problematic when viewed from a single‑point‑of‑failure perspective.
• Finally, attempts to duplicate the management plane can actually exacerbate these issues rather than mitigate them.

So what must be done to keep Kubernetes competitive against emerging, future‑driven platforms, given its suboptimal networking integration?

1. Decouple Kubernetes from the problematic software data plane by offloading it to proven, stable hardware switch processing (SDN).
2. Make the management plane fully resilient by eliminating single points of failure.

Planned solutions:

• For (1): Apply the following SDN‑redefined architecture proposal.
• For (2): Leverage the upcoming python-dbpool reference implementation of a distributed messaging system.

The Solution: SDN Redefined

Moving Critical Functions to Rock-Solid Infrastructure

The path forward requires fundamentally rethinking where we implement critical networking and control functions. I propose “SDN - Redefined” with a multi-controller-based approach:

Offload Critical Networking to SDN Controllers on Hardware Infrastructure

Move to OpenFlow SDN Controller-Based Architecture:

The solution leverages multiple OpenFlow SDN controllers (minimum 2 controllers connected to each distributed switch node) that program the switching hardware via OpenFlow protocol. All network packet-based operations are executed by these SDN controllers, not by existing switch features.

The SDN controller plane provides the following core functionality:

• Execution of network entity logic (e.g., virtual routers and firewalls such as k-segment1-r01 or k-segment1-fw01; see SDN Controller Responsibilities)
• Configuration and reconfiguration of the Kubernetes core network topology, triggered by configure or reconfigure events received from the management-plane

Illustrative workflows:

1. Virtual router for inter-segment connectivity A Virtual Router entity is associated with the network segment kube-segment1 and is configured to receive OpenFlow notifications for incoming packets within its configured IP address range. The same configuration applies to kube-segment2. When a packet requiring forwarding between these segments is detected, the controller issues OpenFlow commands that appropriately rewrite the IPv4 or IPv6 destination address.

2. SIP signaling–based application routing The controller monitors incoming SIP RING messages addressed to specific destination telephone numbers. Upon detection of such messages, it forwards them—via the Message Distribution System—to the appropriate internal application pods, enabling application-aware routing and service invocation within the SDN-controlled environment.

Important Notice:

The following diagram shows a LACP bonded multi-port setup as in a real-world physical cabled environment (crossed over two switches). All subsequent diagrams use a logical (non-crossed) view to simplify things.

Base Architecture:

SDN Controller Responsibilities (currently not existing, to be developed):

• Load Balancing: SDN controllers program flow tables to distribute traffic across application pods, replacing kube-proxy and non‑TLS software load balancers.
• Internal Net-to-Net Routing: Controllers dynamically program routing flows based on pod placement and network topology, eliminating CNI routing pods.
• Firewalling: Kubernetes NetworkPolicies are converted into configurations understood by the SDN controller, which then processes them independently.
• Network Orchestration: Network orchestration for topology changes is handled by Kubernetes. When changes occur, the SDN controller(s) reprogram the underlying network, including VLANs, MSTP, SNMP, and related components.

Controller Redundancy Model:

• Dual Controllers per Switch: Each distributed switch node is connected to two or more independent SDN controllers.
• Multiple Active Controllers: All controllers operate concurrently and are supplied by a novel, fully fail-safe task distribution system.
• Flow-Table Consistency: Multiple SDN controllers running in parallel, together with the underlying stacked virtual switch environment, help ensure consistent flow tables across all switches.
• Split-Brain Prevention: The task distribution system is masterless and is designed to operate in a fully fail-safe manner, thereby preventing split-brain conditions.

Redesign Monitoring Plane

Improve Control Plane Monitoring by Integrating an SDN Layer:

Aggregate OpenFlow flow statistics and SNMP properties with metrics gathered from pod management interfaces to enable much more fine‑grained control over traffic steering, capacity planning, and automated remediation across the entire Kubernetes cluster.

Advantages:

1. No Circular Dependencies: SDN controllers monitor switch flow tables, independent of pod network state
2. Centralized Intelligence: SDN controllers correlate traffic patterns across entire distributed switch fabric

Multi-Controller Architecture

Instead of relying on single Kubernetes control plane instances, implement distributed OpenFlow SDN controllers as the network intelligence layer:

Controller Separation and Redundancy:

• OpenFlow SDN Controllers: Multiple redundant controllers (2+ per distributed switch node) program flow tables for load balancing, routing, firewalling, and network policy enforcement
• Intelligent Task / Message Distribution System: A fully autonomous, fail-safe message distribution system guarantees task execution within tens of milliseconds.

Reliable Message Distribution Protocol (RMDP)

The message distribution controller ensemble implements a distributed, leaderless architecture that eliminates traditional master-slave dependencies through shared-state consensus and transactional task coordination. All MSG distribution instances utilize a unified Ceph/S3 object storage backend for configuration persistence and distributed coordination.

An MSG distribution entity consists of:

a) an MSG distribution server (one instance running on each SDN controller)

b) an MSG distribution client (one instance running as an autonomous entity)

RMDP Logical Processing

• Unified Configuration State: All MSG distribution controller instances (client and server) access and maintain their configuration state through a load-balanced, shared Ceph/S3 object storage backend (shared configuration).
• Shared Task Queue: Additionally, all sender instances (MSG distributor client) and receiver (MSG distributor server on SDN controller) share a task queue through a load-balanced, shared Ceph/S3 object storage backend (shared task queue).
• Task Queue Write Redundancy: The internal RMDP performs serialized writes with short timeouts to multiple S3 endpoints, thereby improving reliability.
• Task Coordination: Upon receiving control-plane instructions to modify the network topology, all active MSG distributor client instances detect the event concurrently. In response to this change—specifically, the reprogramming of the switch infrastructure—each MSG distributor client, for every resulting task, generates a deterministic transaction identifier derived solely from the event metadata, ensuring that the hash value is identical across all participating distributors (clients). Each distributor then writes the identifier and associated processing timestamp to the shared task queue.
• Parallel Task Propagation: Compared to protocols such as the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) over UDP, task propagation behaves in a closely analogous manner: in a four-controller configuration, a single task results in four multicast UDP messages per receiver, yielding a total of sixteen UDP messages, with each message effectively replicated four times. Minor packet loss is therefore tolerable, and no retransmissions or re-sending are required.
• Shared Task Processing: Each receiver instance (MSG distribution server on SDN controller) continuously monitors the shared task queue. Any instance which detects a non-existing UUID first (lookup in the shared task queue and compare status in the shared transaction cache) exclusively initiates synchronous execution and subsequently updates the resulting status, including the associated UUID reference, in the shared transaction cache.
• Controller Degradation Detection: Excessive latency (measured in milliseconds) in receiving a unique identifier-tagged task from any specific controller connection results in that controller being marked as degraded, with concurrent generation of critical operational alerts.
• SDN Controller Processing: A single SDN agent per controller—which operates as a purely mechanical, logic-less entity that only executes assigned tasks and writes the corresponding results back to the shared processing cache.
• Automatic Task Retry: Task execution results are persisted in the shared transaction cache. A watchdog process inside each MSG distributor server instance monitors task completion timeouts; if a task status failed or no status for a task with status in execution will be detected within the expected timeframe the first up-and-running MSG distributor server instances automatically retries the task and sets status accordingly.
• Delayed Queue Writes: Delayed client queue writes that cause initial packets to arrive later than others are harmless. The shared task-queue timestamp exists only for debugging and can be used to detect these situations.
• Complete Elimination of Single Points of Failure: This design eliminates all single points of failure; any individual component—whether a network segment or a controller instance—can fail and subsequently recover without compromising overall system operation, including in deployments spanning multiple data centers.

RMDP Diagram

Practical Implementation Proposal

Enhanced SDN Controller Functionality

Consider the following components:

• SNMP component – Extends existing flow-based metrics, for example by introducing configurable thresholds and enhanced monitoring capabilities.
• P4 component – Provides static, performance‑oriented rules, such as those required for high‑speed firewalling and packet filtering.
• Cisco NX‑OS component – Augments the native capabilities of Cisco NX‑OS devices, enabling deeper integration with the SDN control plane.
• NETCONF component – Enhances provisioning and configuration management through model‑driven, programmatic interfaces.

Implementation in Cisco NX-OS Container Environments

The described approach, when executed in a Cisco NX-OS container environment on Cisco Nexus 9000 series devices, could further enhance system stability by hosting the SDN controller layer directly on hardware.

References and Further Reading

Kubernetes Architecture:

• Kubernetes Components
• Kubernetes High Availability Best Practices
• etcd Clustering Guide

Networking and SDN:

• OpenFlow Specification
• ONOS SDN Controller (reference implementation, not the proposed custom solution)
• OpenDaylight (reference implementation, not the proposed custom solution)
• Link Aggregation (IEEE 802.1AX)

High Availability Clustering:

• Linux-HA Heartbeat (Historical Context)
• STONITH and Fencing Mechanisms

OpenFlow and SDN Development:

• OpenFlow Switch Specification
• Ryu SDN Framework (Python framework for building custom OpenFlow controllers)

Related Articles in This Blog:

• Distributed Ethernet Switches and SDN Architecture (2025-10-31)
• Allied Telesis Switch Configuration with VCStack and LACP (2025-02-08)
• Google Kubernetes: A Retrospective (2024-06-16)

Final Thought: The most reliable systems combine centralized intelligence with distributed execution. OpenFlow SDN controllers provide the intelligence to program network behavior. Hardware switch ASICs provide the speed and reliability to execute packet forwarding. Software pods monitoring other software pods over software-defined networks are complex and unreliable. Choose the right division of labor: intelligence in custom SDN controllers, execution in hardware ASICs.