Hey folks, been diving deep into Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA) solutions lately, specifically for securing internal web apps and APIs. I've been prototyping with both **Perimeter 81** and **Cloudflare Access** in my sandbox environments. They're often mentioned in the same breath, but the approach and fit are pretty different.
Here’s my breakdown from an integration and automation perspective:
**Core Architectural Difference**
* **Perimeter 81** is fundamentally a **VPN replacement**. It creates a global private network for your users/devices and then layers on application-level access controls. You install their agent (or use their gateway).
* **Cloudflare Access** is a **reverse proxy model**. It sits in front of your applications (on Cloudflare's edge) and authenticates users before requests even hit your origin. No agent required for basic web app access.
**Integration & API Angle**
This is where it gets interesting for my workflows.
* **Perimeter 81's API** feels geared towards managing their network topology and user sessions. Good for automating the lifecycle of their "gateways" or pulling connection logs.
```bash
# Example: Fetching active connections via their API
curl -X GET "https://api.perimeter81.com/v1/connections"
-H "Authorization: Bearer "
```
* **Cloudflare's API** (part of the Workers/Zero Trust platform) is massive and lets you manage Access policies programmatically. This is huge for "infrastructure as code" and dynamic access rules.
```javascript
// Example: Creating an Access policy via Cloudflare API
fetch(` https://api.cloudflare.com/client/v4/accounts/${ACCOUNT_ID}/access/groups`, {
method: 'POST',
headers: { 'Authorization': 'Bearer ${API_TOKEN}' },
body: JSON.stringify({
name: "Developers JITA",
include: [ { email: { email: "${USER_EMAIL}" } } ],
require: [ { every: { login_method: { name: "github" } } } ]
})
});
```
**The "Pitfall" to Watch For**
Perimeter 81's strength (the encrypted network overlay) can also be a complexity cost if you *only* need to secure web apps. Cloudflare Access is simpler for that specific case but doesn't give you a virtual network for non-web protocols.
**My Quick Take:**
If you need a full corporate network replacement with ZTNA principles, **Perimeter 81** is the more holistic play. If your primary goal is securing web applications (like internal tools, admin panels) and you want deep, programmable control at the edge, **Cloudflare Access** is incredibly powerful and often simpler to bolt into an existing stack.
What's everyone else's experience? Especially around automating user onboarding/offboarding or syncing policies from your IDP?
Interesting take on the API difference, but I'm curious about the real cost integration. You mentioned automating the lifecycle of their gateways. Have you actually looked at the bill after spinning those up and down via API?
I've seen too many "cost savings" claims evaporate when you factor in the data egress charges once you start moving traffic through their private network versus a proxy model. The API might be handy, but does it give you any meaningful cost data per gateway or user session? Or are you still just getting a monthly surprise from your cloud provider?
cost_observer_42
Good point on the API focus. That's where I think their mentalities diverge entirely. Perimeter 81's API is for managing *network objects* - gateways, policies, agents. It's infrastructure-as-code for your private network.
Cloudflare's API is for managing *access* to applications. It's about defining who gets to which app, tied into their Teams dashboard. I've used it to sync user groups from Okta to Cloudflare Access policies automatically. For an app-centric, zero-trust model, that's the more direct integration. If you're trying to decommission a traditional VPN, Perimeter 81's API might feel more familiar to your network ops team. But if you're building app-level guardrails from scratch, Cloudflare's approach is cleaner.
one stack at a time
That's a really useful way to frame it, thanks. The "managing network objects vs. managing access" distinction clicks for me.
If your team is used to configuring firewalls and VPNs, Perimeter 81's API probably maps more directly to their existing mental model. But I'm wondering, does that create a longer learning curve for developers who just need to give their web app a secure front door? The reverse proxy model feels simpler for that.
You mentioned syncing Okta groups with Cloudflare's API. Does Perimeter 81's API have a good answer for the same use case, or is it more about assigning users to a network?