But it's not. How much you can soak up of clients actively trying to handshake and request resources is going to be different from how much of bulk traffic. How much traffic you can soak up in one place (e.g. saturating your peering to where 80% of your customers are). Or how much spoofed traffic you can soak up globally from a botnet.

Cloudflare has a ton of infrastructure, and this just makes them intrinsically more robust to the biggest attacks. It's in their interest, therefore, to make people believe there's a lot of really big attacks.

You're just describing different capacities.

But this complexity likely works against your claim that there are reliable estimates, meaning that it's easier for everyone else to A) inflate their own capacities and argue that B) CF shouldn't be trusted in their assessment as it's inflated.

And I've already addressed your last point, so alternatively: if the biggest attacks are 1 bps of traffic, it doesn't matter that you have a ton of infrastructure because anyone can handle a byte. The lie has to exceed "capacities" of others for it to matter.

> CF shouldn't be trusted in their assessment as it's inflated.

I think since we know CloudFlare has the biggest scale, we know that CloudFlare has the biggest capacity, with a higher baseline request rate and traffic exchanged than anyone else: definitely globally, and almost everywhere locally.

> And I've already addressed your last point, so alternatively: if the biggest attacks are 1 bps of traffic, it doesn't matter that you have a ton of infrastructure because anyone can handle a byte.

Which is why Cloudflare has an incentive to make DDoS attacks sound bigger.