Back to home works like it should, at least for me, just test it, I’m connecting to my home router via app, speeds and ping as usual. Also can’t ping 78.28.208.100
Correction: Apparently now you need to run 7.12. I just tested with my RB5009 on 7.11.2 and it complains that the device isn’t compatible. 
Just update to latest beta, it’s stable.
yeah it does work, but transferring from one to another it takes too long.
That is my job to find out why
Feature request: could you add the ability for this VPN to be used by devices connected to the Mobile Hotspot?
I think that is a phone OS limitation. If I remember correctly, you can’t use any VPN through mobile hotspot. Each connected device needs to connect on their own.
Apparently there’s a workaround, by using a proxy, I’ve seen that something like superpoxy or everyproxy which do not require Android root permissions, can be used to share a VPN connection. I suppose then it would be possible to integrate such functionality within a VPN app.
Oh, I’m sure that’ll work, but the starting post in this thread mentions ROS 7.11 as a requirement, and that is no longer accurate.
I think there is a double-NAT going on when you use a mobile hotspot… That might be solvable.
- You might able to set the Mikrotik as the “DMZ host” if your hotspot has admin page/screen.
- The other way, perhaps, is involving https://help.mikrotik.com/docs/display/ROS/NAT#NAT-Endpoint-IndependentNAT but you need to look at the traffic flows to know if that work/help.
That should be changed now because Mikrotik stated that BTH won’t be available in ROS 7.11 but can be used from 7.12beta and up.
I’m a bit confused by your answer, I think you might be talking about a different kind of hotspot?
What I’m talking about is the ‘Mobile Hotspot’ functionality in Android. It’s for sharing your phones mobile data with other devices as a wifi network. The issue with this is, that if you enable a VPN on your phone, the traffic originating from the phone is routed through the VPN, but (relevant to my ‘Feature request’) the phone does not route traffic from the other tethered devices connected to the phone’s ‘Mobile Hotspot’ over the VPN tunnel, it goes directly out to the internet. Since this is the case, clearly your second suggestion does not apply, since the tethered traffic would never hit the Mikrotik device. I’m guessing your first suggestion also isn’t talking about the Android ‘Mobile Hotspot’ feature
But seeing as there are workarounds to this using proxies like superproxy or everyproxy I wonder if this functionality could be included within the VPN app, so no additional workaround is needed.
Can you name a commercial VPN solution that has such functionality? We can’t make a solution based on workarounds, especially if it’s not supported in all OS.
No, I’m not aware of any (I haven’t looked for such). But I would be interested to have my computer appear to be at home while using my phones mobile data without having to do additional setup on the computer itself. I suppose this kind of functionality would have to be an optional feature, as at least the mentioned proxies are protocol specific (e.g. http/https) and not general purpose for all traffic?
If I’m not mistaken this
could solve this
?
would rather have a unique selling point instead of copying another provider.
Don’t you think that is worth providing such a feature?
If you have these requirements you should think about using a Mikrotik device with LTE modem. You can set up routing to your needs there.
Re “mobile hotspot” — my bad, iPhone user here — I though you mean an external device, not the “tethering” with Android. But it’s a double-NAT and the CGNAT may not be able to map the needed BTH port.
If you consider WebRTC’s DataChannels/SCTP as a VPN, they use ICE (plus STUN/TURN) “things” to help with figure out NAT situation to transport data through NAT/firewall.
But BTH could do the ICE/STUN/TURN standard dance (outside of WebRTC/SIP) on /ip/cloud’s backend, to augment port selection for BTH/WG. That be useful even without BTH to do “NAT type detection” inside RouterOS.
qr code doesn’t work any more.
was working fine before upgrading
BTH doesn’t support mips cpu.
At most of our premises we have hEX as the main router - which is not supported yet.
Is is a good idea to use hAP ax lite instead of hEX? Does it have the same throughput?
Don’t make a mistake about the name ‘lite’.
AX Lite is performance wise not that much worse then Hex.
Thanks for reply.
So, not that worse means worse? - I didn’t find any info regarding this.
If worse, in which parameter worse?
My use case is simple wired router / firewall / Wireguard VPN.
If hAP ax lite is not worse for that use case I’ll buy that instead of hEX in the future - hence cheaper and BTH compatible.
(WIFI will be switched off)