edits to "New Home Network Architecture"

content/posts/new-homenet-architecture/index.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 title: "New Home Network Architecture"
-date: "2025-11-19T11:30:00-07:00"
+date: "2025-11-20T07:30:00-07:00"
 description: "The architecture of my current home network"
 summary: "I decided to rearchitect my home network, and this is the result."
 ---
@@ -43,9 +43,10 @@ result.
 ![First Network Diagram](first_net.svg 'My last "orthodox" network architecture')
 
 I had VLANs for everything coming from the VM hosts to the physical switches.
-Traffic would go in and out and in again so everything would route through the
-tiers like they're supposed to. I had more VMs acting as routers than I had
-VMs doing productive activity.
+Traffic would loop through the tiers (in, out, and back in), routing
+everything like it's supposed to, but this redundancy introduced unecessary
+complexity. I had more VMs acting as routers than I had VMs doing productive
+activity.
 
 When I decided that I would like to start using IPv6 in my network, everything
 doubled. I kept the IPv4 and IPv6 traffic on separate VLANs, and had separate
@@ -65,7 +66,7 @@ came up with several principles:
   responsibility for security on the network, it tends to get complicated. You
   make physical design choices around isolating packets on the right segments
   and getting them to the right firewalls, where the network should focus on
-  moving traffic through it as quickly as possible. This goal of simply
+  moving traffic through it as quickly as possible. This principle of simply
   getting packets to where they need to be is how the Internet scales so well.
   We can keep physical LANs simple and efficient like this, and leave the
   security concerns to the endpoints. The endpoints need to be secure anyways,
@@ -124,7 +125,7 @@ improvements.
   to make maintenance more transparent with the ability to fail over.
 - **Virtual Machines**. Most of my workloads were set up as virtual machines.
   I wanted to migrate to [Kubernetes](https://kubernetes.io/) as everything
-  I was running could be run there, plus many other benefits.
+  I was running could be run there, along with many other benefits.
 - **NAT64**. Here I was running IPv6 to get away from needing NAT, but I still
   needed NAT. This setup was mostly working fine, but there were a few small
   irritations:
@@ -169,13 +170,13 @@ The key changes are:
   - My recursive DNS servers providing DNS lookups for the network are on two
     anycast addresses. Each edge router runs an instance and advertises one of
     the addresses; this is so I can "bootstrap" the network from the edge
-    routers. I also run the DNS service under Kubernetes, this advertises the
+    routers. I also run the DNS service under Kubernetes, which advertises the
     same anycast addresses using ordinary `LoadBalancer` services.
 - **IS-IS and BGP**. I took a few passes at getting this right. I first tried
   to move fully from IS-IS to BGP only. This meant setting up peering
   using IPv6 link local addresses, which worked, but it was a bit flaky under
   [FRR](https://frrouting.org/). I settled on using IS-IS on the fabric
-  interfaces only to exhange the IPv6 loopback addresses of each node. I use
+  interfaces only to exchange the IPv6 loopback addresses of each node. I use
   the globally routable loopback addresses for the BGP peering, which is much
   easier in practice. All of the other routes (access subnets, Kubernetes
   networks, anycast addresses, defaults from the edge routers) are exchanged
@@ -187,10 +188,10 @@ The key changes are:
 - **BGP Extended-Nexthop**. An added bonus to using BGP the way that I am is
   that I could make use of the [BGP extended-nexthop](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8950)
   capability. The old network with only IS-IS still required me to define IPv4
-  subnets on the switching fabrics, nodes would use IPv4 addresses as the next
-  hop gateway addresses for IPv4 routes. With the extended-nexthop capability
-  in BGP, it uses the IPv6 link-local addresses for the next hop under both
-  IPv4 and IPv6.
+  subnets on the switching fabrics, nodes used IPv4 addresses as the next hop
+  gateway addresses for IPv4 routes. With the extended-nexthop capability in
+  BGP, it uses the IPv6 link-local addresses for the next hop under both IPv4
+  and IPv6.
 
 ### High Availability
 
@@ -227,12 +228,14 @@ advertisements to the subnets. Both routers are configured to advertise their
 presence, as well as the subnet prefixes and DNS information. Client machines
 will pick these up, and then have both routers as their default gateways.
 
-For IPv4, I need to run VRRP to share a `".1"` address on the subnet that DHCP
-advertises as the default gateway. This works, however much less elegantly
-than the configuration with IPv6.
+While IPv6 configuration is seamless, IPv4 relies on VRRP to share a `".1"`
+default gateway address, which, though functional, lacks the elegance of
+IPv6's stateless design.
 
 ## It Works
 
 After I got this all in place, it was finally possible to build myself a
-working Kubernetes cluster and migrate all of my old services over to it.
-I'll get into that adventure in the next series of articles.
+working Kubernetes cluster and migrate all of my old services over to it. The
+transition to Kubernetes not only streamlined service management but also laid
+the foundation for future scalability and automation. I'll get into that
+adventure in the next series of articles.