Jump to content
RESET Forums (homeservershow.com)

First Take on Luma Experience


dz8
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

What happens if you try and watch a Youtube video or Netflix y walking around the house does it pause or stutter going between Luma's?

As for your speed tests what is the make/model of the device your testing with?

What are you using to do the speed test?

Is it possible to plug a wired device into Luma and run a speed test?

What is the speed your paying for both up/down?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

 

No worries :) We are all trying to learn here. Appreciate your thoughts.

 

 

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.

 

I will reconsider once Luma becomes a complete solution. But as of right now, it's far from it. It has no firewall capabilities built in (especially rule based) thus it cannot replace my Cisco router. It has no VPN capabilities either. And it doesn't even have a DMZ port. I can't even do basic port forwarding. In addition, there are a lot of scenarios where you may want a device in front of the Luma. Whether Luma wants to be 1st inline and whether I allow it to be, is all based on how feature rich their product becomes.

 

BUT, that is completely orthogonal from whether Luma requires that it be 1st in line. And I am failing to see why it requires that it is. That's the point I was making in my last post. I have seen zero literature from them suggesting it has to be. In fact, when I shared my network diagram with their engineers and support team, they were fine with my topology. Also I believe I read (I think it was on this forum) that Luma's response to the lack of a port forwarding feature was to leave your existing router alone and put the Luma 2nd in line. So no, I don't think it has to be 1st in line.

 

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.

 

I agree, we don't know enough of what their infrastructure looks like. But that said, I have not seen many (if any) cloud based products that require an inbound connection into your home. Every one that I have seen makes an outbound connection from your home. That includes all the routers I have ever used. All IoT devices I have ever used. Etc. And note that my network doesn't prevent the Luma from making an outbound connection. It only prevents inbound connections. I would be shocked if Luma required an inbound connection -- enough where that would basically end my desire to continue with them. It's completely unnecessary. And not a very security conscious method of communicating with the outside world.

 

There are examples of other cloud based services. Take for instance Nest (thermostats, cameras, etc). It's cloud based. You manage the devices through their cloud offering (you do not manage the devices directly aside from telling them how to talk to the cloud). And there are no inbound connections. It's all outbound.

 

Another example, Zscaler. Yeah, not a home/consumer service. It's enterprise. But it's a pure cloud based security/firewall/proxy. And again, no inbound connections.

 

I looked at the Q&A you referenced in the other thread. I don't see anything in their response which suggests they require an inbound connection. All it tells me, is that Luma is a pure cloud based management platform, just like Nest, etc. So the Luma needs to be able to talk to their cloud-based server to be configured. And I totally get that their filtering feature is cloud-based. That's totally valid and is actually the right way to implement a feature like that because you want to offload the content filtering decisions into the cloud otherwise you'd have constant firmware updates required on your local device (as new threats appeared) as well as increasing memory to hold all the dynamic black lists involved. But again, they can do all this making an outbound connection. An inbound connection is not necessary, nor is it implied by anything they said in that Q&A.

 

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/

 

 

I disagree. I don't think the issue with my kids' devices has anything to do with whether I am allowing inbound traffic to the Luma. Why? Because it works fine 99% of the time with the inbound traffic blocked. It just hiccuped a few times where it (for whatever reason) decided to terminate Internet access for all their devices. The fact that it works 99% of the time suggests no inbound connection is necessary, and that it's just a bug. If my kids' devices never worked, then I would be more open to the lack of an inbound connection causing it. But since the Luma has never (not even during setup) been given the ability to take an inbound connection, that theory just doesn't work in my opinion.

 

 

Update on Ethernet Backhaul Issue:

 

FWIW, Luma sent me a note late yesterday that they may have found some bugs in the backhaul feature and they hope to have an update to a solution at the end of the week. And again, they seemed fine with my network topology.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No worries :) We are all trying to learn here. Appreciate your thoughts.

 

 

 

I will reconsider once Luma becomes a complete solution. But as of right now, it's far from it. It has no firewall capabilities built in (especially rule based) thus it cannot replace my Cisco router. It has no VPN capabilities either. And it doesn't even have a DMZ port. I can't even do basic port forwarding. In addition, there are a lot of scenarios where you may want a device in front of the Luma. Whether Luma wants to be 1st inline and whether I allow it to be, is all based on how feature rich their product becomes.

 

BUT, that is completely orthogonal from whether Luma requires that it be 1st in line. And I am failing to see why it requires that it is. That's the point I was making in my last post. I have seen zero literature from them suggesting it has to be. In fact, when I shared my network diagram with their engineers and support team, they were fine with my topology. Also I believe I read (I think it was on this forum) that Luma's response to the lack of a port forwarding feature was to leave your existing router alone and put the Luma 2nd in line. So no, I don't think it has to be 1st in line.

 

 

I agree, we don't know enough of what their infrastructure looks like. But that said, I have not seen many (if any) cloud based products that require an inbound connection into your home. Every one that I have seen makes an outbound connection from your home. That includes all the routers I have ever used. All IoT devices I have ever used. Etc. And note that my network doesn't prevent the Luma from making an outbound connection. It only prevents inbound connections. I would be shocked if Luma required an inbound connection -- enough where that would basically end my desire to continue with them. It's completely unnecessary. And not a very security conscious method of communicating with the outside world.

 

There are examples of other cloud based services. Take for instance Nest (thermostats, cameras, etc). It's cloud based. You manage the devices through their cloud offering (you do not manage the devices directly aside from telling them how to talk to the cloud). And there are no inbound connections. It's all outbound.

 

Another example, Zscaler. Yeah, not a home/consumer service. It's enterprise. But it's a pure cloud based security/firewall/proxy. And again, no inbound connections.

 

I looked at the Q&A you referenced in the other thread. I don't see anything in their response which suggests they require an inbound connection. All it tells me, is that Luma is a pure cloud based management platform, just like Nest, etc. So the Luma needs to be able to talk to their cloud-based server to be configured. And I totally get that their filtering feature is cloud-based. That's totally valid and is actually the right way to implement a feature like that because you want to offload the content filtering decisions into the cloud otherwise you'd have constant firmware updates required on your local device (as new threats appeared) as well as increasing memory to hold all the dynamic black lists involved. But again, they can do all this making an outbound connection. An inbound connection is not necessary, nor is it implied by anything they said in that Q&A.

 

 

I disagree. I don't think the issue with my kids' devices has anything to do withelse  whether I am allowing inbound traffic to the Luma. Why? Because it works fine 99% of the time with the inbound traffic blocked. It just hiccuped a few times where it (for whatever reason) decided to terminate Internet access for all their devices. The fact that it works 99% of the time suggests no inbound connection is necessary, and that it's just a bug. If my kids' devices never worked, then I would be more open to the lack of an inbound connection causing it. But since the Luma has never (not even during setup) been given the ability to take an inbound connection, that theory just doesn't work in my opinion.

 

 

Update on Ethernet Backhaul Issue:

 

FWIW, Luma sent me a note late yesterday that they may have found some bugs in the backhaul feature and they hope to have an update to a solution at the end of the week. And again, they seemed fine with my network topology.

WOW my friend lots of info you have provided, Thank you.

Well it seems based on your testing and my lack of testing that the disappointments just keep on giving. After you said there is no firewall I said to myself your crazy Luma must have a firewall that is not exposed well sadly you seem to be correct again I would like to know where there claim of 'enterprise security" comes into play here, I just did a port scan and only 3 of the 1000+ service ports showed stealth all the rest showed only closed. Luma really needs to come clean with what they are offering and stop giving there customers a false sense of security. WOW I feel sorry for anyone putting Luma 1st inline and thinking they are secure. As you can imagine I just closed the DMZ port from my Verizon Wireless router and did a re-scan and now all my ports are showing stealth. Thanks for that info.

 

So lets see, No virus/malware scanning at the gateway. No firewall, No automatic channel management, No insight to websites, No port forwarding, No UPnP support for gaming consoles, What else am I missing? Sad the lack of security has me most disappointed at this point.

Edited by itGeeks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi All. I just signed up here after lurking on the Luma threads for a few days.

 
I wanted to say that I had a Luma and returned it. And boy am I glad I did.
 
As itGeeks points out, the disappointments do indeed keep on giving...and I am glad I returned it when I did. I totally understand launching with out some features - but to launch without a firewall is downright criminal in this day and age - the fact that Luma has not been forthcoming on their claims of enterprise security are LAUGHABLE.
 
The entire product & empty promises are a complete joke on consumers.
 
I did some research on Paul and Mike the cofounders and if you read closely, they are primarily investors. Look at their history...they are in this to create a company of value and sell it off so they can take the money and move on.
 
I'll just say I purchased another similar product and have had an incredible experience from setup to security to support. 
 
My advice: Stay away from luma. Say far far far far away. 
 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me be clear that I don't believe Luma requires any inbound connections (in case anyone searching misreads the posts I was quoting and my comments). I was just stating that I believe it's fine for me to run the Luma second in line (behind another router), and I believe Luma's engineers/support staff were ok with it (and have signaled that it's ok in the past especially with their comment about running it second in line to work around the lack of port forwarding in the initial release).

 

WOW my friend lots of info you have provided, Thank you.

Well it seems based on your testing and my lack of testing that the disappointments just keep on giving. After you said there is no firewall I said to myself your crazy Luma must have a firewall that is not exposed well sadly you seem to be correct again I would like to know where there claim of 'enterprise security" comes into play here, I just did a port scan and only 3 of the 1000+ service ports showed stealth all the rest showed only closed. Luma really needs to come clean with what they are offering and stop giving there customers a false sense of security. WOW I feel sorry for anyone putting Luma 1st inline and thinking they are secure. As you can imagine I just closed the DMZ port from my Verizon Wireless router and did a re-scan and now all my ports are showing stealth. Thanks for that info.

 

So lets see, No virus/malware scanning at the gateway. No firewall, No automatic channel management, No insight to websites, No port forwarding, No UPnP support for gaming consoles, What else am I missing? Sad the lack of security has me most disappointed at this point.

 

 

Let's see what they do with their end of month firmware update. I feel they rushed the product out the door but I don't want to use that decision against the product itself yet (although it probably can be used against their product management team). I am waiting to see how the product does after the real 1.0 firmware and real 1.0 mobile app is released. I have used numerous products that had sh*tty 1.0 releases only to become awesome products after a few patches. We'll see.

 

I will say tho, that I am happy with Luma's Technical Support team tho. Manager reached out to me. Pleasant experience on calls. Constant updates via email without me asking for them. I'm happy about that. And at least the "Surround WiFi" feature is working as advertised. No issues. Fast. Seamless connection handoff. No downtime moving from zone to zone. At least that part's great.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Hi All. I just signed up here after lurking on the Luma threads for a few days.

 
I wanted to say that I had a Luma and returned it. And boy am I glad I did.
 
As itGeeks points out, the disappointments do indeed keep on giving...and I am glad I returned it when I did. I totally understand launching with out some features - but to launch without a firewall is downright criminal in this day and age - the fact that Luma has not been forthcoming on their claims of enterprise security are LAUGHABLE.
 
The entire product & empty promises are a complete joke on consumers.
 
I did some research on Paul and Mike the cofounders and if you read closely, they are primarily investors. Look at their history...they are in this to create a company of value and sell it off so they can take the money and move on.
 
I'll just say I purchased another similar product and have had an incredible experience from setup to security to support. 
 
My advice: Stay away from luma. Say far far far far away. 

 

Welcome to the forums!

 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on Luma, May I ask what product you purchased as a replacement to Luma? That maybe helpful to others thinking of either canceling or returning Luma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me be clear that I don't believe Luma requires any inbound connections (in case anyone searching misreads the posts I was quoting and my comments). I was just stating that I believe it's fine for me to run the Luma second in line (behind another router), and I believe Luma's engineers/support staff were ok with it (and have signaled that it's ok in the past especially with their comment about running it second in line to work around the lack of port forwarding in the initial release).

 

 

 

Let's see what they do with their end of month firmware update. I feel they rushed the product out the door but I don't want to use that decision against the product itself yet (although it probably can be used against their product management team). I am waiting to see how the product does after the real 1.0 firmware and real 1.0 mobile app is released. I have used numerous products that had sh*tty 1.0 releases only to become awesome products after a few patches. We'll see.

 

I will say tho, that I am happy with Luma's Technical Support team tho. Manager reached out to me. Pleasant experience on calls. Constant updates via email without me asking for them. I'm happy about that. And at least the "Surround WiFi" feature is working as advertised. No issues. Fast. Seamless connection handoff. No downtime moving from zone to zone. At least that part's great.

Thank you for the response and changing the tone of my post :)

When I posted I was very upset at the fact I had Luma hanging off a DMZ "unaware" that there is no REAL firewall in place for god sake, I may very well not have the 'high level' of experience in networking you seem to have but I am also no dummy in networking either. You know I am with you I have been part of many beta programs and have purchased brand new products that had sub par v1,0 software and yes like you sad more times then not given the time they become really good. What upsets me more here is the lack of communication to the public on what Luma is and is not at this point in development and what we can all expect going forward. The only reason you and I know about these problems/short falls is because we are digging/testing hard to discover them, Is that fair to the poor consumer that purchased Luma with the impression that there networks are safe behind Luma? NO. I would of been fine had I known Luma lacks all these features had I known upfront and I would of known not to setup Luma with inbound access on the WAN port, Things like this are unacceptable.

 

I guess I have beat this conversation to death, I just want to leave you with this. They should had something on there website that we could find easy that said something like

 

"We are excited about Luma and all it has to offer so we are releasing the product early to get this great product in as many hands as we can with some of lacking features below"

 

That would of been the correct way for Luma to ship ahead of its readiness. Like you I am going to hang on for a few firmware updates to see what happens, I just know I can't deploy the other 3 Luma's I have here till I am extremely comfortable with the security. According to Luma rep I spoke to yesterday there are no plans at the moment to include a firewall so if that's true then Luma can't be used in the way I had planed.

Edited by itGeeks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forums!

 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on Luma, May I ask what product you purchased as a replacement to Luma? That maybe helpful to others thinking of either canceling or returning Luma.

Sure...I purchased the eero. It's was a bit more expensive as you know, but everything has been top notch. I had a small problem a few days after set up, and called support (Domestic US support no less!) and I was on hold for about 1 minute. The support person was able to look at my network remotely and see one of my eeros was in a bad state and fix it. Remotely. It was great. Since then zero problems and 100% WiFi coverage in my house.

 

As usual, you get what you pay for in life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure...I purchased the eero. It's was a bit more expensive as you know, but everything has been top notch. I had a small problem a few days after set up, and called support (Domestic US support no less!) and I was on hold for about 1 minute. The support person was able to look at my network remotely and see one of my eeros was in a bad state and fix it. Remotely. It was great. Since then zero problems and 100% WiFi coverage in my house.

 

As usual, you get what you pay for in life.

 

 

Well, I don't have much to say about the price. I've seen superior Cisco gear being sold for dirt cheap in order to flood the market when Juniper first was a threat. I've also seen companies drop their pants on price in order to catch up to a rival. If you look at the two devices, they are pretty similar (qualcomm quad core 667Mhz processors in the Luma vs qualcomm 1GHz dual core processors in the Eero). If you look at the current feature sets, they are pretty similar. Original target price was supposed to be the same. Both companies seem to have solid support teams. I think the price differential is merely the two companies having different strategies on product margins and/or Luma attempting to catch up to Eero's earlier release.

 

As other's have pointed out, Eero also had bugs after release. It's just they had time to iron them out.

 

More than price and bugs, what really gets me is the stuff Luma marketed as why their product was superior to Eero. None of those features are in the product right now. That's the real kicker. So what will really settle this is when/if those features show up on the Luma... and if Eero (who now seems to be actively working on the same features) gets those features out first.

 

If we're sitting in late Fall and Luma's supposed differentiators are still in the vaporware department, and Eero has actually executed and implemented the features that were supposed to differentiate the Luma, then I'm switching to Eero. I'm not in it for the religious battles (Luma vs Eero, etc). I've done iOS. I've done Android. I've switched back and forth. I want something that has the features I need. I could care less about paying full price for the Eero at that point since I want a product with visibility (monitoring) and filtering (content rating) features. In fact, I might just move to Circle at that point like HSS Dave. That product seems to be working albeit without the mesh networking. At that point my Lumas become another failed $250 kick starter experiment for me :)

 

But I'm hopeful Luma will put it together.

Edited by dz8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question to dz8.

 

Where did you find the reference that Luma is using a Qualcomm quad core 667Mhz processor?  I am interested in the article to see if there are any other interesting information about the Luma internals.

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...