** WE WANT A LTE BRIDGE-MODE **
Dear MikroTik,
we, your truly customers, have a great wish.
We would like to add a LTE interface to a BRIDGE to create a bridge-mode to get our public IP from the LTE interface to our ETHERNET interface.
Please speed up your development and add this to your next update.
Thank you very much!
ROS is already have this feature
Sent from my C6833 using Tapatalk
really? how to set it up? when I am inside the bridge settings on the tab “ports” I am not able to add the LTE interface to my bridge!
Maybe you can tell us how to add the LTE interface to a bridge. Thank you!
Use an LTE device that supports it.
Does the “Huawei ME909s-120” supports it?
If not which mini-PCIe card supports it? I need 150-down and 50-up speed support.
Thank you!
+1
Need bridge mode.
OpenWRT already can do it!
If you want us to make the LTE bridge more we need more information on the requirements for that.
For example, when the LTE interface is in the bridge mode, do you need connection to the Router as well as the Router now just passes the IP from the LTE network to the ethernet host?
+1 for the bridge mode. Just this week got LTE connection and set up bridge connection from Zyxel router to MikroTik. Would buy the SXTLTE in a heartbeat and return the provider router+antenna.
Well, there would have to be a way to manage the router when in bridge mode, as long as that is possible and bridge works, I would be happy. In current setup I get the external public IP from ISP via DHCP client to MikroTik. I also can access the bridging router with its internal IP, so I can manage it.
So you get the Public IP from your LTE connection via the Zyxel to the MikroTik Router?
And to manage the Zyxel router you need to assign static IP on the MikroTik router and use the internal static IP for the Zyxel?
When you connect to the Zyxel router it doesn’t have access to the Internet as the IP is bridged to the MikroTik device?
Yes
Now here it gets interesting. I haven’t had time to look deeper into it, but right now the working config is as follows.
> /ip address print
# ADDRESS NETWORK INTERFACE
0 10.10.10.1/24 10.10.10.0 bridge
1 D 1.2.3.98/30 1.2.3.96 ether1
/ip dhcp-client print
# INTERFACE USE-PEER-DNS ADD-DEFAULT-ROUTE STATUS ADDRESS
0 ether1 yes yes bound 1.2.3.98/30
/ip route print
# DST-ADDRESS PREF-SRC GATEWAY DISTANCE
0 ADS 0.0.0.0/0 1.2.3.97 0
1 ADC 10.10.10.0/24 10.10.10.1 bridge 0
2 ADC 1.2.3.96/30 1.2.3.98 ether1 0
I don’t have the 192.168.1.0/24 range IP attached to Mikrotik. I did try this at first, but that acted weird. However that range (192.168.1.1 is Zyxel) is available from both MT and from my local 10.x network. Traceroute shows one hop at the 192.168.1.1 as well.
/tool traceroute 8.8.8.8
# ADDRESS LOSS SENT LAST AVG BEST WORST STD-DEV STATUS
1 192.168.1.1 0% 8 0.2ms 0.3 0.2 0.7 0.2
2 100% 8 timeout
3 90.190.153.44 0% 8 24.8ms 55.8 20.9 77.9 20.5
4 194.126.123.2 0% 8 34.6ms 25.8 19.9 34.6 4.8
I don’t have a way to test internet connectivity from zyxel. However, it does have the external IP and gateway attached to it, or at least shows it at the WAN info page… Same external IP on both MT and zyxel… ARP table shows that external GW and 192.168.1.1 are available on ether1
/ip arp print
# ADDRESS MAC-ADDRESS INTERFACE
...
9 DC 1.2.3.97 90:EF:68:D4:50:7B ether1
...
12 DC 192.168.1.1 90:EF:68:D4:50:7B ether1
When you had the 192.168.1.x network on the router what exactly was acting weird?
let us know if you were able to connect to connect to Zyxel an check if it can connect to the Internet and what does it shows as WAN connection.
Another business case is when you cope with fail-over solutions using 4G/LTE.
Without digging into to much specific technical details about what might be required, the main objective is you want to have full control on what’s happening on the backup link from the connected router to be able to take further actions like checking the link status and ip address, alter routes, change DDNS records for external DNS-server to redirect incoming services using the backup link, sending alarms, etc.
A “virtual” LTE interface would be very nice with the ability to execute scripts on events such as link-up, link-down and address-change etc.
+1 for bridge mode
However, I have temporarly fixed that problem. I am now using dovado tiny router with E3372s dongle in USB. Dovado gives the possibility to bridge USB device with LAN/WLAN ports. As the result you have the IP address from your ISP assigned to the device directly connected to dovado router. So, if you connect you laptop by wifi, your IP will be redirected to your wireless connection. If the connected device is Mirkotik router, then you have that IP assigned to your ether1 (WAN) port.
The only disadvantage I have encountered is that it takes approx. 5-6 minutes for dovado to establish connection. I don’t know what the problem is. I have tried on 2 different dongles (E3372s and M-150 which is actually E3372 too) and it is the same. Both HiLinks, and both connect to the Internet immediately when connected directly to laptop.
I would get rid of any additional equipment, if Mikrotik would support getting Public IP directly on WAN instead of using old RAS modems and PPP connections.
Tried last RC and still couldn’t add lte into bridge! When we will?
+1 to be able to put an LTE interface inside a bridge.
But this will not remove the biggest problem, the NAT inside the LTE 4G modem. To remove that limitation we need bridge mode inside the modem, or IP passthrough.
The USB LTE 4G modem i tried, a E3372h from Huawei, can’t deliver the WAN ip address through IP passthrough. Router mode is mandatory and DMZ or port forwarding is not available in the modem configuration (through web interface). So in the end we get a 192.168.8.0/24 nated subnetwork from this modem. Very bad when we use a Mikrotik for advanced network management. We end with a double NAT setup without possibility to configure any port forwarding.
The best we could do here, is to flash a modified web GUI in the modem, to give access to port forwarding and DMZ settings. But router mode and NAT will stay anyway enabled. More this flashing is not supported by the modem vendor. This is a terrible solution.
Flashing the E3372h in Stick mode (it become an E3372s modem) , an USB port appear inside Router OS, but PPP connection on this port does not work for me (Mikrotik HAP RB951, Router OS 6.38.5).
The same modem works under Windows 7 and deliver the WAN address through RNDIS interface. So it seems to be a driver problem inside Router OS.
Anyway the ppp connection is really slower than LTE and is CPU hungry. So this is not a good solution technically.
So would it be possible to switch those modems in bridge mode (using QMI commands ?), so that we can get the wan ip (through DHCP ?) on the LTE interface ? Then accessing the modem web management interface should not be a problem, adding a static IP address in the 192.168.8.0/24 range on the LTE interface. I did that for PPPoE DSL modems in bridge mode linked through Ethernet to a Mikrotik port. Adding a static IP to the Ethernet port of the Mikrotik gave access to web GUI even with the modem in bridge mode. The wan address going to the PPPoE interface on this same Mikrotik Ethernet Port.
As it is not easy to modify the routing table in the modem, adding a masquerading rule on the Mikrotik Ethernet port where the modem is connected give access to the modem from other subnetworks without touching the modem routing table. It is even possible to distribute this modem administration IP subnetwork through a routing protocol to get access to the modem Web interface from everywhere in the network.
II suppose it is the same in LTE 4G routers, the modem ip (192.168.x.x) certainly stay available even if the modem is in bridge mode. The only difference is that the modem internal DHCP server is disabled, so it cannot deliver an address for the web interface (if enabled there would be two DHCP servers, a local one and the provider one and they will conflict).
Some 4G LTE modems do allow bridge mode to be configured from their web management interface, for example the Netgear LB1111. But it is a Ethernet port modem, not an USB one.
So it seems definitely possible technically, some advanced users seems to get it working on OpenWRT using QMI commands.
Edit :
Some modems in Ip passthrough mode seems to use a trick to enable two DHCP servers (local and wan) in the setup. In this case :
A reduced (two minutes) dhcp lease time is assigned to the modem local DHCP server. When there is no wan connection, a local IP address is delivered to the client host to allow for modem administration.
When wan connection is active, the modem local DHCP server is disabled (i suppose) and the client host can get a wan address and gateway, this time delivered by the wan side DHCP server.
See here : https://www.att.com/gen/general?pid=23697
More +'s for the LTE bridge.
I think I saw a while ago (some weeks) LTE in brtidge port list after playing with some “Quick Set”.
However, now when I tried to do the bridging on purpose, I could not add LTE interface to bridge. OS 6.40rc5 /RB922UAGS
Tried with Sierrawireless MC7710 and Huawei ME909s-120.
Is it just my imagination, or has there been such possibility already?
Uldis asked biz case / requirements:
I would need that in order to get the cellular network assigned IP to the host attached to Ethernet port (DHCP).
This is required in order to access the host from the network. As one cannot use routing behind the cellular network, this is the only option.
(Sure you could play with NAT & port translation, but that’s not the solution)
+1 for LTE bridge mode in RouterOS
While waiting for this to be implemented, I’m currently using OpenWrt, where it can be easily configured without any problem.
Guys this solution from Netgear looks to be almost perfect https://www.netgear.com/images/datasheet/mobile/LB1121.pdf
It supports POE in for power, has bridge mode and the styling is fantastic.
Unfortunately for me, it does not support Bands 3 or 28 which are what NZ providers use 
I really wish Mikrotik would implement an LTE bridge mode! If a product like the wAP LTE or ltAP Mini had LTE bridge mode, we would have already purchased over a thousand of them.
+1
Any news? I have several RB912UAG-2HPnD’s with Sierra Wireless MC7700 Mini-PCIe LTE aircards I’m trying to use for an IoT project. They are very stable and work great except for the inability to remote into them from outside. If I could get the LTE Public IP out to the ether1 & wlan it would be awesome. I’d be happy to provide any logs or information.
Probably just a stupid idea for a LTE bridge workaround and not tested:
Could netmap together with HotSpot one-to-one NAT work when LTE-Client and router are not the same device (i.e. a SXT LTE connected to another routerOS device?
-Chris