Case 26 · Flagship

AI Infra Control Plane

An AI infra control plane connects policy, identity, audit, intent, MCP, FinOps, and SLO signals into one operating model for private AI on Kubernetes.

01

How it works

From signal to a verified proposal.

AI Infrastructure Control Plane by Andrey Lesnikov — Kubernetes-native governance for private AI: Detect → Decide → Approve → GitOps → Verify.

Architecture diagram of the AI Infra Control Plane: Detect through Verify core with governance inputs and GitOps delivery
Control plane first: PolicyBundle evaluate, durable state, then GitOps proposal and verify.
AI Infrastructure Control Plane overview animation: operator dashboard, governance pipeline, and platform signals
Lifecycle — Detect → Decide → Approve → GitOps proposal → Verify
  1. 01

    Evaluate the PolicyBundle

    Versioned policy packs score the request against identity, quota, MCP boundaries, FinOps, and SLO inputs — producing a durable decision_id.

  2. 02

    Record a durable decision

    Decisions and approvals persist (Postgres HA or SQLite single-node) with tenant isolation and JWT-only tenancy where required.

  3. 03

    Approve and propose GitOps

    Capability-bound approvals unlock remediation proposals — including optional GitHub draft PRs — instead of silent config drift.

  4. 04

    Verify the runtime contract

    Signed OCI Helm/images, Trivy scans, and runtime verification close the loop so governance is proven, not assumed.

02

Evidence

From problem to proof.

How the system is framed, operated, and proven — not a slide deck summary.

01
Problem

Private AI platforms often wire identity, policy, cost, and SLOs as scattered service configs. That makes ownership, audit, and platform-level governance hard to operate.

02
Architecture

The control plane unifies OPA policy, OIDC identity, audit trails, intent routing, MCP tool boundaries, FinOps signals, Redis state, and Prometheus SLO telemetry under Kubernetes ownership.

03
Operating model

Platform owns PolicyBundle generations, durable decisions, capability-bound approvals, and GitOps proposals. Runtime planes consume signed contracts instead of inventing governance per service.

04
Trade-offs

A shared control plane concentrates platform responsibility. The payoff is consistent contracts across AI services instead of every team reinventing governance.

05
Evidence

Useful signals include decision IDs, approval records, PolicyBundle generations, GitOps proposal status, runtime verification results, and audit trails around MCP and intent.

06
Latest evidence

Quota backend fail-closed (PR #125): default QUOTA_ON_UNAVAILABLE is approval_required; unknown values also fail closed. allow is explicit opt-in only and is marked with reason quota_backend_unavailable_allowed plus a warning metric. Compose e2e adds a Redis-down step asserting a non-allow decision; kind e2e waits on real Argo CD Synced status (docs/EVIDENCE.md).

Constraints

OPA policy, OIDC identity, MCP tool boundaries, FinOps signals, Prometheus SLOs, Redis state, and Kubernetes ownership.

03

Related

Nearby systems.

Case 19 · Flagship

AI Runtime Platform

  • Python
  • vLLM
  • KServe

AI workloads often start as API calls but become production systems that need identity, policy, scaling, telemetry, and clear ownership

Every model call: policy + trace + budget

Case 02 · Flagship

Cloud-Native AI Gateway

  • Gateway
  • Providers
  • OpenTelemetry

AI usage needs routing, policy, budget awareness, and provider resilience

One boundary: rate, budget, fallback, OTel

Case 08 · Pattern

RAG Knowledge Platform

  • Export
  • Index
  • Retrieve

Engineering knowledge is spread across repositories, runbooks, tickets, architecture notes, and project history

Cited answers from project evidence

Available for meaningful infrastructure conversations

Build systems that stay calm under pressure.

Available for conversations

Talk infrastructure

Book a working session

Meet ↗

Evidence first

For deep dives

Explore the systems

All cases ↗