Jump to content
RESET Forums (homeservershow.com)

First Take on Luma Experience


Recommended Posts

Luma support got back to me this morning (awesome to see they are working on weekends) :)

 

They asked me to try enabling ethernet backhaul on Luma #2 and leaving Luma #3 on wireless. I power cycled my Lumas and my switches, and connected an ethernet cable from one switch to Luma #2's IN port. Success! Finally seeing what I hoped to see:

 

a.) Wired devices left alone and their MACs showing up on the correct port on my main switch's MAC table.

b.) Wireless devices communicating with Luma #2 having their MACs show up on the correct port on my main switch's MAC table proving traffic for these wireless devices is being backhauled.

c.) Switch interface statistics showing massive increases in packet counts during speedtest runs, and on the correct switch port.

 

So with only one secondary Luma on ethernet, it looks like ethernet backhaul is indeed working. Nice!

 

Still waiting to hear back if they found an issue with having two connected, or what the deal is.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 239
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • itGeeks

    79

  • dz8

    39

  • cskenney

    15

  • awraynor

    15

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Personal Review: Luma 3-Pack White   Sorry, this won't be a crazy technical review. I'm a busy guy. Just wanted to provide my experience after having the Luma system for one day.   My Network  

More Updates   This product definitely looks rushed out the door. I have not had any performance or connection issues yet. Still good in that regard and speeds are fast throughout the house. BUT, af

I read your review on Amazon, You are spot on with it and you did it in a nice way. We can only hope things will get better going forward because god knows its been a rocky start. Only time will tell.

Luma support got back to me this morning (awesome to see they are working on weekends) :)

 

Still waiting to hear back if they found an issue with having two connected, or what the deal is.

Glad to hear you've turned the corner. I'm looking forward to the next update.

 

For me, things have stayed much more stable. One negative, though, is that it still feels at times like I'm jumping between Luma devices depending on where I am in my house. With one device on each level, as I move around with an eye on my signal strength I see my signal looking good, then drop low, then shoot up again. Almost as though it's acting as a normal access point and I have to go noticeably low before a handoff happens.

 

I'm not as technically savvy as you guys so I have no idea if this is what's actually happening. I'm just trying to describe how it seems.

 

Also, I have not been able to produce speedtest results remotely close to what the Luma app says I'm getting. 35MB vs. 135MB. Normally I wouldn't care but after having played around with Eero for a few days, I found that I was actually getting those high results in real life usage.

 

My signal is relatively stable so I'm not complaining but with Eero as a point of comparison I know there's still room for improvement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
itGeeks

Luma support got back to me this morning (awesome to see they are working on weekends) :)

 

They asked me to try enabling ethernet backhaul on Luma #2 and leaving Luma #3 on wireless. I power cycled my Lumas and my switches, and connected an ethernet cable from one switch to Luma #2's IN port. Success! Finally seeing what I hoped to see:

 

a.) Wired devices left alone and their MACs showing up on the correct port on my main switch's MAC table.

b.) Wireless devices communicating with Luma #2 having their MACs show up on the correct port on my main switch's MAC table proving traffic for these wireless devices is being backhauled.

c.) Switch interface statistics showing massive increases in packet counts during speedtest runs, and on the correct switch port.

 

So with only one secondary Luma on ethernet, it looks like ethernet backhaul is indeed working. Nice!

 

Still waiting to hear back if they found an issue with having two connected, or what the deal is.

AWESOME! that's great news. Support seems very responsive and with time Luma will only get better :) sixteen more days and hopefully we will see that big firmware update that adds port forwarding and other features as well as fixes... Cant wait.

Edited by itGeeks
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, it's been a few days.

 

Luma's engineering and support teams were working on my issue over the weekend. I've been getting updates from them almost daily.

 

As of right now, they're still debugging the issue but they believe it's a compatibility issue that's specific to my Internet facing router. I have a Cisco RV-042G and my Luma is behind it. It sounds like they believe the two are not playing nice. I don't have much information aside from they are looking into this compatibility issue and will hopefully have some updated information for me by the end of this week.

 

I also experienced some new issues with the Luma (only while in the ethernet backhaul configuration). Every so often, it looks like the Luma fails to serve up a DHCP lease for a device. The device says it's connected to the Wifi but is not receiving an IP. When this happens, the device never gets an IP no matter how many times I cycle wifi on/off and reboot the device. Only when I reboot the Lumas does it get an IP. This seems to only happen with the ethernet backhaul configuration enabled. When in pure wireless mode, it has not happened. Luma is aware of this as well and looking into it.

 

As for now, I'm running the Lumas in wireless only mode (no ethernet backhaul) and I have not had any problems. Things are running smoothly.

 

Hoping to see some bugs squashed with the upcoming update as well as some of the missing launch features showing up. Note Luma support did not promise to me that any of these will be in the next update. Just me being hopeful.

Edited by dz8
Link to post
Share on other sites
itGeeks

Sorry, it's been a few days.

 

Luma's engineering and support teams were working on my issue over the weekend. I've been getting updates from them almost daily.

 

As of right now, they're still debugging the issue but they believe it's a compatibility issue that's specific to my Internet facing router. I have a Cisco RV-042G and my Luma is behind it. It sounds like they believe the two are not playing nice. I don't have much information aside from they are looking into this compatibility issue and will hopefully have some updated information for me by the end of this week.

 

I also experienced some new issues with the Luma (only while in the ethernet backhaul configuration). Every so often, it looks like the Luma fails to serve up a DHCP lease for a device. The device says it's connected to the Wifi but is not receiving an IP. When this happens, the device never gets an IP no matter how many times I cycle wifi on/off and reboot the device. Only when I reboot the Lumas does it get an IP. This seems to only happen with the ethernet backhaul configuration enabled. When in pure wireless mode, it has not happened. Luma is aware of this as well and looking into it.

 

As for now, I'm running the Lumas in wireless only mode (no ethernet backhaul) and I have not had any problems. Things are running smoothly.

 

Hoping to see some bugs squashed with the upcoming update as well as some of the missing launch features showing up. Note Luma support did not promise to me that any of these will be in the next update. Just me being hopeful.

Thanks for the update. Just wondering do you have Luma hanging off a DMZ on the RV-042G?

 

Luma has been running great for me, No drops or reboots needed. I am getting my full internet speed. There are only two annoyances so far-

1st is the Luma app is misreporting my upload speed, Its showing 72UP when it should be 150

2nd Luma does not seem to be selecting the best channel for my environment but speeds are fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the update. Just wondering do you have Luma hanging off a DMZ on the RV-042G?

 

 

Nope. Luma #1 is hanging off a non-DMZ port.

Link to post
Share on other sites
itGeeks

Nope. Luma #1 is hanging off a non-DMZ port.

Thanks for the reply, Luma should be hanging off a DMZ if going threw another router as it creates its own network and needs wide open access to the internet not being filtered or blocked by any other router. Maybe that's y your having trouble with it. Even if it does not solve you Ethernet backhaul problem hanging it off a DMZ is the recommended way to setup Luma behind another router.

 

There is another thing I want to add, As happy as I am with Luma stability and performance there is one thing that I am very concerned about that I keep forgetting to post. Luma does not seem to have any antivirus/malware protection enabled right now and if it does its week at best. One of the first things I did after setting up Luma was test the so called enterprise antivirus/malware protection using the very popular Eicar test files for both antivirus/malware scanning and it failed terribly, I had to disable Sophos Home endpoint protection on my test laptop before I could test all the Eicar test files because Sophos blocked every one of them first so I did not know if Luma enterprise virus/malware scanning was working but after I disabled Sophos I was able to download ALL the Eicar test files undetected. I now have a support ticket into Luma asking them y Luma allowed these test files threw. User be warned, The network behind Luma may not be as protected as Luma says we should be according to my testing. Maybe this is just vaporware like port forwarding and internet monitoring but hew knows. I just wanted to get this out there so there is no false sense of security behind Luma at this point. Endpoint protection is your best friend.

Edited by itGeeks
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply, Luma should be hanging off a DMZ if going threw another router as it creates its own network and needs wide open access to the internet not being filtered or blocked by any other router. Maybe that's y your having trouble with it. Even if it does not solve you Ethernet backhaul problem hanging it off a DMZ is the recommended way to setup Luma behind another router.

 

 

I am not sure I understand. Hanging off a non-DMZ port, the Luma still has wide open access to the Internet in the outbound direction -- it can establish whatever connection it wants going out to the Internet. I don't see why Luma needs wide open access to inbound connections. That should not be the case and if so, I'd like to understand why something on the Internet is making an inbound connection to my Luma. And it's fine that Luma creates it's own network. My router provides the Luma with it's WAN side IP. Luma creates it's own network on the LAN side and acts as the gateway and DHCP server for everything on the LAN side. None of that should require the Luma be off the DMZ port.

 

Also not sure how that would effect ethernet backhaul either. Because all that the Cisco router is doing is double NAT (which shouldn't effect the Luma) and acting like another service provider in front of the Luma. It should actually make no difference whatsoever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
cskenney

Might be worthwhile to check with Luma support to see if a double NAT installation is known to be OK or if it's not recommended then why not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
itGeeks

I am not sure I understand. Hanging off a non-DMZ port, the Luma still has wide open access to the Internet in the outbound direction -- it can establish whatever connection it wants going out to the Internet. I don't see why Luma needs wide open access to inbound connections. That should not be the case and if so, I'd like to understand why something on the Internet is making an inbound connection to my Luma. And it's fine that Luma creates it's own network. My router provides the Luma with it's WAN side IP. Luma creates it's own network on the LAN side and acts as the gateway and DHCP server for everything on the LAN side. None of that should require the Luma be off the DMZ port.

 

Also not sure how that would effect ethernet backhaul either. Because all that the Cisco router is doing is double NAT (which shouldn't effect the Luma) and acting like another service provider in front of the Luma. It should actually make no difference whatsoever.

I am not trying to start an argument with you in anyway, You seem very skilled in networking and hew knows maybe I can learn something here but here is my take on Luma.

 

Luma is not an AP only product its a complete solution and Luma very much wants it installed 1st inline to any other router, Suggesting anyone needing to keep there existing routers should put there old routers in 'bridge mode' and let Luma handle the routing/firewall/wireless. The other option is hang Luma of a DMZ so the WAN port has a clear path in/out like any other router would have 1st inline, We don't know enough about there cloud infrastructure and what communication in which direction or where the check-in is coming from, Could be cloud or could be Lume or a combination of both but my guess is there cloud infrastructure needs inbound communication on the WAN port of Luma. Y do I say that? Have a look at this post below Q2 & Q3 for the answer and I believe we may have found the problem to your kids devices loosing internet because there filtered. Your blocking inbound traffic to the WAN port on Luma (simulating an outage in the eyes of Luma) http://homeservershow.com/forums/index.php?/topic/11369-luma-and-its-cloud-server-requirements/

Edited by itGeeks
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...