Thanks for the further info. Great feature by the way!Of course you can just keep using Wireguard. This new feature is also using Wireguard, but it has one advantage, it can work even if your router has no public IP
Any information on the relay server? Capacity? Where are they located? Will there be server on other countries?However, if the router is not directly reachable from the internet, the connection will be made through the MikroTik relay server
Why? Instead of a relay you could just run a Wireguard server with public IP address. The point of the relay is that Mikrotik is not able to decrypt your traffic - you do not need traffic for yourself, do you? 😜Is it possible to open source/release the server side of the BTH relay? I'd love the ability to roll my own relay - which would remove the traffic from going through Mikrotik's server (would save Mikrotik cost as well)
Our own TomJonesNorthIdaho comes to mind...If somebody here works in a well connected data center with high speed connectivity, you are welcome to drop us an email
That's actually nice part. Any peer will directly connect to the router's WG from BTH app (or any WG client) if you have a public IP on router, automatically.Why? Instead of a relay you could just run a Wireguard server with public IP address. [...]Is it possible to open source/release the server side of the BTH relay? I'd love the ability to roll my own relay [...]
Probably never will be supported, so, Wireguard apparently not supports MIPS architecture. Probably I'm wrong.Can we get answer on the xMIPSx situation with BTH?
That really is where BTH be more useful. e.g. I used ZeroTier to enable BTH to test it – so really didn't need BTH since I already had ZeroTier. On xMIPSx, there are no options for a VPN from a CGNAT to a CGNAT, without building your own VPN hub.
There you are wrong. Wireguard works fine on the RB750g3 Mipsel.Wireguard apparently not supports MIPS architecture. Probably I'm wrong.
Quite true.Wireguard works fine on the RB750g3 Mipsel.
Not really. I have to use LTE with public IPs, but that's not always possible & expensive. So use SSTP as backup, but that takes another router to act as the relay (at some point could use normal WG, but still some lingering V6 devices)...You know another VPN solutions? I'm also using on both sides LTE with CGNAT on both sides of course. My home core is LtAP (mmips).
Yup, as BTH be fine a solution (in my initial testing on a remote wAPacR) for the CGNAT problem on LtAP (and KNOTs) without ZT... e.g. there are 0 devices with 2 modems in the ARM lineup... Why do you think I've resorted to begging here?[...] only waiting for BTH compatible with MIPS.
Similar use case to using your Relay Except closer to home.What would be the use case, sorry I don't get it
did you try the direct link? https://apps.apple.com/lv/app/mikrotik- ... 6450679198When using the standard Wireguard Iphone App I am able to connect.At the moment I can not find the Mikrotik BTH Iphone app in the app store (I'm living in the Netherlands)
That did the trick.did you try the direct link? https://apps.apple.com/lv/app/mikrotik- ... 6450679198
I can't open any port on my home router and always I get 10.x.x.x IP segment from my ISP. Anyway I can do that?You can already make a Wireguard connection to your CHR from the home router, and then make a Wireguard VPN from your phone to the same CHR. This way you can achieve the same result without custom "relay".
And there are some free service to alocate CHR on cloud that can recommend?not to your home. FROM your home. that's the idea
Phone ------> [CHR server] <------- Home behind NAT
Another workaround for lack of BTH on MIPS... is using VPN (WG or whatever) on IPv6. This depends on the LTE provider with CGNAT, but good chance they support IPv6. No middle CHR need if both sides have IPv6.And there are some free service to alocate CHR on cloud that can recommend?not to your home. FROM your home. that's the idea
Phone ------> [CHR server] <------- Home behind NAT
It does find it for me, if you search for MikroTik, but it's below some other results. So use the linkHello everyone,
@Normis, the application is still not available in France on IOS, searching for it gives no results, and using the direct link says « this application is not available in your country ». I don’t think it’s wished.
Regards,
Are we kidding?Sorry, update about France. It looks like France is banning encryption apps, so this is why we could not release it there. They require special approval from the government to release app that encrypts data. https://www.ssi.gouv.fr/en/regulation/c ... pplication
Well, can't blame Apple or French regulations on the MIPS topic...I take the silence from MT about "Back to Home" on mips some like this:
* We can get it to work, but we like to phase out the mips series, so it will not be supporter.
* We have problem to get it to work, so we wait to inform about status for mips until we have a good answer to give.
I don't think so... it's still WG under-the-covers. But ZeroTier should support TCP fallback if a NAT-punching VPN is needed as an alternative when faced with a "ZeroUDP" network .Does it work when admin nazis block all udp ports?
You can. Configure it as regular wireguard on PC.i wish if i can do that with laptop
Now, I do..@satman1w, Are you sure you're using the latest version of Winbox(3.39)?
You can. Configure it as regular wireguard on PC.
There room for more tabs in IP>Cloud for other future proxies ;) ... just not for poor LtAP and KNOT owners that would really benefit from BTH...IF so, a BIG THANKS to MT, for making themselves a relay server.
Almost as generous as zerotrust cloudflare tunnel for hosting servers without exposing public IP, coming to all mikrotik devices, from a smarter MT, in a parallel universe. :-)
I have a valid dynamic IP which is obtained via PPPOE. However, BTH didn't have a direct IPv4 connection.MikroTik relay is only involved in this case. IF you have public IP, it's just a direct wireguard, no relay.
Interesting idea...Dreaming of an easy solution for our xx.xxx students:
- Back To Home
- Shibboleth login
- Full IPv4 + IPv6 dual stack tunnel after connect
Apparently it was not possible to connect to it, maybe ISP blocking somethingI have a valid dynamic IP which is obtained via PPPOE. However, BTH didn't have a direct IPv4 connection.MikroTik relay is only involved in this case. IF you have public IP, it's just a direct wireguard, no relay.
2023-08-08_02-26-21.jpg
Well, I use the main WG tunnel daily. Does the BTH check the tunnel connectivity from your server? Because Wireguard to/from outside my region is blocked.Apparently it was not possible to connect to it, maybe ISP blocking something
I have a valid dynamic IP which is obtained via PPPOE. However, BTH didn't have a direct IPv4 connection.
2023-08-08_02-26-21.jpg
They had a change of heart!"Available from 7.11 (currently in RC)"
Mikrotik RB4011iGS+5HacQ2HnD-IN stable ROS 7.11 he didn't get an option Back to Home VPN.
??
I think if you had the configuration from the 7.11rc...and upgrade to 7.11stable, it keeps the configuration at least. Or at least that's what I see.They had a change of heart!"Available from 7.11 (currently in RC)" ....
viewtopic.php?t=198228#p1018758
Maybe something like hAP ac2, it has USB, arm CPU, 5×1Gig eth ports, wifi but you can disable that if you don't need it. Or maybe new L009 ?Pretty cool.
I do still buy Hex (RB 750gr3) though. They're good spec, dual core, SD slot, IPsec acceleration, so feels like they should not be left behind. I'm not sure there is a direct replacement for that model? Maybe hap ax2 is close but they have different uses
Yes it's close. It's just the USB feels fragile and temporary. Although, I haven't really been using the SD. It's just that I think I should, and might use it, for capsman firmware updates.Maybe something like hAP ac2, it has USB, arm CPU, 5×1Gig eth ports, wifi but you can disable that if you don't need it. Or maybe new L009 ?Pretty cool.
I do still buy Hex (RB 750gr3) though. They're good spec, dual core, SD slot, IPsec acceleration, so feels like they should not be left behind. I'm not sure there is a direct replacement for that model? Maybe hap ax2 is close but they have different uses
So what will happen if I enable use-local-address ? The Cloud DNS will be set to my local public ipv4 address?use-local-address is not for Back to Home. It is for Cloud DNS.
it appears to be that way:So what will happen if I enable use-local-address ? The Cloud DNS will be set to my local public ipv4 address?use-local-address is not for Back to Home. It is for Cloud DNS.
any chance that connection to the relay server goes via port 443?Answers to common questions:
1) It uses Wireguard and is a secure VPN
2) (If used) Relay does not decrypt your tunnel and has no access to your data
yes, but it does not matter for BTH. That is for Cloud DNS feature, unrelated to this topic. BTH does not care if you have public or private IP.it appears to be that way:
So what will happen if I enable use-local-address ? The Cloud DNS will be set to my local public ipv4 address?
https://help.mikrotik.com/docs/display/ ... d-Advanced
thanks for the clarificationyes, but it does not matter for BTH. That is for Cloud DNS feature, unrelated to this topic. BTH does not care if you have public or private IP.
I suppose you can create a /ip/firewall/nat action=src-nat rule so the VETH's IP be masqueraded to router's WG address, when going out wireguard. Issue is the LAN subnet (including VETH) is likely already allowed addresses, so VETH is just another bridge member, so it use the router's IP and thus using normal WAN NAT rule.[...] AdGuard Home placed on the container, VETH interface in the main bridge, AdGuard address set as DNS in the DHCP server, Wireguard works properly as it should [...] AdGuard admin panel in the logs this connection is shown at the Router's gateway address, not as the address assigned in Wireguard - the question is what to do that it works with Wireguard address in AdGuard admin panel? [...]
But I used Zerotier and in this case in AdGuard admin panel I saw ip address from Zerotier.I suppose you can create a /ip/firewall/nat action=src-nat rule so the VETH's IP be masqueraded to router's WG address, when going out wireguard. Issue is the LAN subnet (including VETH) is likely already allowed addresses, so VETH is just another bridge member, so it use the router's IP and thus using normal WAN NAT rule.[...] AdGuard Home placed on the container, VETH interface in the main bridge, AdGuard address set as DNS in the DHCP server, Wireguard works properly as it should [...] AdGuard admin panel in the logs this connection is shown at the Router's gateway address, not as the address assigned in Wireguard - the question is what to do that it works with Wireguard address in AdGuard admin panel? [...]
If your router is behind another router, enabling this checkbox will update the ddns entry with its local address (e.g. 192.168.1.x).What does "use local address" mean?
But I used Zerotier and in this case in AdGuard admin panel I saw ip address from Zerotier.[...] Issue is the LAN subnet (including VETH) is likely already allowed addresses, so VETH is just another bridge member, so it use the router's IP and thus using normal WAN NAT rule.
I'm rather beginer with Mikrotik, so can You write me, how should look NAT rule, which I need to place before this dynamic BTH NAT rule?
But I used Zerotier and in this case in AdGuard admin panel I saw ip address from Zerotier.
It was just one suggestion. BTH I believe NAT's everything via dynamically added NAT masquerade rule and that's what you're running into. Hard to visualize without config... but maybe better to use an accept rule for the dst-address of your AdGuard container, and place before the BTH NAT rule.
In other words — It the the default BTH NAT rule's behavior you need work-around since you can't disable BTH's NAT rule that's added automatically by RouterOS.
If ZeroTier is working, one less thing to worry about— it's just different than BTH. ;)
Hard to do this blind without config. And there may be other solutions and/or other firewall may effect solution... but something like this:I'm rather beginer with Mikrotik, so can You write me, how should look NAT rule, which I need to place before this dynamic BTH NAT rule?In other words — It's the the default BTH NAT rule's behavior you need work-around since you can't disable BTH's NAT rule that's added automatically by RouterOS.
/ip/firewall/nat add action=accept protocol=udp port=53 src-address=192.168.216.2 place-before=0 chain=src-nat
/ip/firewall/nat add action=accept protocol=tcp port=53 src-address=192.168.216.2 place-before=0 chain=src-nat
Thank You very much for help - it works! 👍🙂Hard to do this blind without config. And there may be other solutions and/or other firewall may effect solution... but something like this:
I'm rather beginer with Mikrotik, so can You write me, how should look NAT rule, which I need to place before this dynamic BTH NAT rule?
The action=accept say to not NAT traffic from WG BTH peer's IP to UDP or TCP to the DNS port 53, since the BTH NAT rule (e.g. with the "D" in left most column) is first by default, these need to be before that rule, which is what the place-before=0 does. You can do same in winbox creating IP > Firewall > NAT, setting protocol, port, etc. and dragging the new rules to the first in the list.Code: Select all/ip/firewall/nat add action=accept protocol=udp port=53 src-address=192.168.216.2 place-before=0 chain=src-nat /ip/firewall/nat add action=accept protocol=tcp port=53 src-address=192.168.216.2 place-before=0 chain=src-nat
What I don't know myself is how aggressive BTH's dynamic NAT rule is... e.g. will BTH NAT rule will move itself first in list via some reboot/background process/config changes.
For the new tunnel I configured the same tunnel name so .....The BTH config name matches the system VPN tunnel name already.
We plan to add "delete tunnel" feature in the app.
If you see such a situation that tunnel is not working, make a supout.rif file and email us, maybe support can see what happened.
Get into the same issue at least twice and was not able to use VPN. Is there a way to set 443 port?any chance that connection to the relay server goes via port 443?Answers to common questions:
1) It uses Wireguard and is a secure VPN
2) (If used) Relay does not decrypt your tunnel and has no access to your data
So that I can use BTH from within restricted networks.
The last time it happened when I was at Nova Poshta office in Ukraine and tried to connect to my home router to make a call to local Nova Poshta office. I didn't check ports, but my voice app didn't work and probably because of the blocked ports, this is why I've tried to use BTH. By the end I've switched to Skype Out.In your country is there like a whole range of blocked ports, or how does that work?
I have tried to reconnect now it's working.Tested right now, relay is working without a problem. Maybe problem is on windows machine ?
Did you try to connect with mobile 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.Just update to latest beta, it's stable.
I think there is a double-NAT going on when you use a mobile hotspot... That might be solvable.Feature request: could you add the ability for this VPN to be used by devices connected to the Mobile Hotspot?
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.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'm a bit confused by your answer, I think you might be talking about a different kind of hotspot?I think there is a double-NAT going on when you use a mobile hotspot... That might be solvable.Feature request: could you add the ability for this VPN to be used by devices connected to the Mobile Hotspot?
- 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/ ... pendentNAT but you need to look at the traffic flows to know if that work/help.
could solve thisBut 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.
?Get into the same issue at least twice and was not able to use VPN. Is there a way to set 443 port?
any chance that connection to the relay server goes via port 443?
So that I can use BTH from within restricted networks.
would rather have a unique selling point instead of copying another provider.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.
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.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.
It was in RC1 changelog.BTH is only available in beta versions of ROS for now. You need to install beta version of ROS if you want to use BTH.
It worked for me just fine.Use URL for rc package and modify as needed.
What is the difference?new BTH will come in 7.13beta1
Hello, greetings, my name is Hector Prado, I live in the United States. What do you need to participate in this project?While in Beta, we have a relay in the MikroTik data center in Latvia. Depending on demand, we will expand to other regions and will lauch relays in other countries. If somebody here works in a well connected data center with high speed connectivity, you are welcome to drop us an email :D
While BTH should work* on a cAP downstream of ISP, it will be proxied via Latvia. Assuming the hAPax2 has a public IP, if BTH runs there it will NOT be proxied, and direct connection from remote BTH/WG client will be used. Proxying is slower and avoidable if BTH does run on a device with public IP. In theory, you can forward the BTH port from hAPax2 to the cAP which avoid the proxy. But all easier if BTH was on the edge AX2 router.But why not on AX2 ?
Anyway, irrespective of this comment, I want to say a big thanks to Mikrotik as the feature in any case solves an issue for me. I have a router behind CGNAT at one of my places which I want to access remotely and was planning to solve it with a free setup of a container with Cloudflare Quick tunnel + custom container that would update the randomly generated tunnelname to a git repo I have access to for cases I wanted to access the network.Feature request: could you add the ability for this VPN to be used by devices connected to the Mobile Hotspot?
Solve it, forgot to add the network to user!It's a great feature, but there is one issue. When I connect to the VPN on my iPhone running iOS 17.1, I'm unable to access the router via SSH. I've been using iPhone shortcuts to enable or disable firewall rules, and it works perfectly through the web or the MikroTik app.
I have granted permission for the network 192.168.261.0/24 to access SSH through the firewall and in the services configuration.
Has anyone else encountered this issue and managed to find a solution?
Thanks
Hello, have you thought about integrating User Manager as a WireGuard administrator?Answers to common questions:
1) It uses Wireguard and is a secure VPN
2) (If used) Relay does not decrypt your tunnel and has no access to your data
3) It secures your router with firewall, it does not open up full access to your router in any way
4) It is not a feature for anonymity, it is a home user feature for maximum ease of use.
5) If you wish, after you have enabled it with our BTH app, you can also connect using Wireguard on your computer. You can use the QR code in Winbox IP CLOUD menu to get the needed config to your computer
@normis, Do you plan to make BTH available for MT7621A?
IP -> Cloud -> BTH -> Revoke and Disablehow to remove existing BTH functionality and start from the beginning with the new app?
How do you mean "no longer connects". Is there an error somewhere? In the BTH app?Hello,
I use BTH between an iPhone and an Audience. The Audience is behind a CGNAT (LTE) network. A reboot of Audience is necessary every day for it to work. Audience is connected to the internet but without reboot BTH from Iphone app no longer connects.
I don't understand what's blocking it. Disable/ Enable of the WireGuard interface is not sufficient.DNS cache ? Do you have any ideas ?
And how to remove existing connections from the app?IP -> Cloud -> BTH -> Revoke and Disablehow to remove existing BTH functionality and start from the beginning with the new app?
Thanxin the phone settings go to VPN configuation and delete there
Thanxin the phone settings go to VPN configuation and delete there
Ok, nothing changed in the firmware for BTH. So revoke and disable and after that enabled doesn't change anything for my problem?IP -> Cloud -> BTH -> Revoke and Disablehow to remove existing BTH functionality and start from the beginning with the new app?
The application remains in the connecting state. Seen from the iPhone VPN menus, a tunnel exists but it does not work. After rebooting the router, the application switches to connected and the traffic passes through the tunnel. Do you kill unused tunnels at night?How do you mean "no longer connects". Is there an error somewhere? In the BTH app?Hello,
I use BTH between an iPhone and an Audience. The Audience is behind a CGNAT (LTE) network. A reboot of Audience is necessary every day for it to work. Audience is connected to the internet but without reboot BTH from Iphone app no longer connects.
I don't understand what's blocking it. Disable/ Enable of the WireGuard interface is not sufficient.DNS cache ? Do you have any ideas ?
Thanks ! I will do thatplease make a supout.rif file in the router at the time, when the tunnel is not working. and if you can - one more file, when it starts to work after reboot. send both files to support@mikrotik.com, it could be an issue with RouterOS
i don't use multiple devices at the same time.Like I said above, you can't use multiple devices with the same settings. You must use the new Share feature in the phone app, to make a separate tunnel for each new device.
Hello, I think I found the problem. The BTH application enables DDNS, but it forgets the ddns-update-interval. As soon as the public IP address changes the DDNS may remain false and the tunnel may become inoperable. I don't know the 1m value is too low but it works.How do you mean "no longer connects". Is there an error somewhere? In the BTH app?Hello,
I use BTH between an iPhone and an Audience. The Audience is behind a CGNAT (LTE) network. A reboot of Audience is necessary every day for it to work. Audience is connected to the internet but without reboot BTH from Iphone app no longer connects.
I don't understand what's blocking it. Disable/ Enable of the WireGuard interface is not sufficient.DNS cache ? Do you have any ideas ?
in the phone settings go to VPN configuation and delete thereIn the iOS app, how do you remove a existing tunnel?
Geez, I should have figured that out. That works. Thanks!in the phone settings go to VPN configuation and delete thereIn the iOS app, how do you remove a existing tunnel?
0.22 as the time of writing .There's an update waiting for you on the Play Store.What is the last Android app version?
- Added LAN/Internet accessibility icons
- Added Allow/Block LAN option (ros 7.14+)
- Added support for new user manager (ros 7.14+)
Your post has no context. Do you mean if you are drinking a cup of coffee while running on the treadmill??Did somebody else noticed ping increase and drop in speed ?
Have you used wireguard? Its not an enterprise solution where 1000s of employees need to VPN into work............Is it possible to connect multiple Wireguard peers with Mikrotik at the same time? And use it for VPN service in an Organization instead of L2TP or SSTP?
Yea i know, it was quickly written. I noticed that speed was cut in half and ping was about 250-300 ms instead of the regular 120 ms.Your post has no context. Do you mean if you are drinking a cup of coffee while running on the treadmill??Did somebody else noticed ping increase and drop in speed ?
Biggest difference is ease of use. To use BTH you only need a phone and the router's password. You don't even need to ever see Winbox or any other router config. Just connect and click enable.What is the difference with this BTTH vs Zerotier?
Which would be the right one to use?
Where is this share button? I have version 0.22 on Android and i cannot find this Share button anywhere.It is almost same, but you need to download the Wireguard app in your computer.
1) set up BTH via phone, just like normal
2) in BTH app click the Share button
3) Choose Wireguard config file option and send the file to your computer (iPhone to Macbook is the easiest, just AirDrop the file)
4) Open the file with Wireguard app and it's done
On the side of the tunnel selection bar i only have three dots, and if i press them it opens up tunnel settings. I don't see anything else.Pull up create / tunnel bar and on your selected tunnel right on the side is button for sharing.
Cheers for thatConceptually:
BTH uses wireguard = L3
Zerotier operates on L2 level.
So it depends on your requirements ... as usual with such questions.
Cheers for that. Did not realise it needs DDNS service to be enabled for that to work.Biggest difference is ease of use. To use BTH you only need a phone and the router's password. You don't even need to ever see Winbox or any other router config. Just connect and click enable.What is the difference with this BTTH vs Zerotier?
Which would be the right one to use?
Not realy so much for customisation as for the security reasons i changed Winbox port, but BTH doesn't know how to work with that, so i changed it back to default. For me BTH is the most convinient way to reach device behind cg-nat. And also to connect from my phone, to use Pihole on my home network.dcavni you seem to have a very customised device. BTH is for people that don't want to configure their devices manually at all. So BTH works best with default config. If you are able to change ports and such things, you can create BTH setup manually too :D
...> Next post intimates that it doesnt work with different Winbox Ports??
only the BTH app (!) needs the default port. To set it up. We might fix that, but then again, if you have custom ports and whatnot, might as well just use winbox
> how to setup the Mikrotik manually, when using your relay point
IP > CLOUD and enable BTH. QR code and config file will be shown. When using a Wireguard app with this QR config, it will use our relay
Fair enough re non-standard winbox port. But if BTH app added MDP/LLDP/etc discovery, that solve the port problem... but more importantly potentially be "more friendly" (e.g. during on-boarding app could start with "Router found at 192.168.xx.1. Setup now?") instead of the end-user having to know the router's IP.> Next post intimates that it doesnt work with different Winbox Ports??
only the BTH app (!) needs the default port. To set it up. We might fix that, but then again, if you have custom ports and whatnot, might as well just use winbox
No, I have not set it up yet because I dont understand how it works and likely not to unless I understand the role of the routeranav, before I answer. Have you used the BTH app and understand what it's purpose is? It enables Wireguard in router. That is all.
BTH's main "trick" is using /ip/cloud DDNS to use a new "<sn>.vpn.mynetname.net" in the WG generated configuration (instead of an actual IP address). If you router is behind a CGNAT/non-public, the the x.vpn.mynetname.net address resolve to a Mikrotik server. If you have a public IP, BTH's DDNS name is stuff used, but /ip/cloud will resolve the x.vpn.mynetname.net to YOUR IP address, so Mikroitk isn't involved. So it's the DDNS services allows the proxy / non-proxy mode to change WITHOUT reconfiguring your remote WG peers since they use the DNS name, not an IP.anav, before I answer. Have you used the BTH app and understand what it's purpose is? It enables Wireguard in router. That is all.
Mine is empty. Not sure how the "back-to-home-lan-restricted-peers" address-list in firewall gets populated actually. So rule does nothing in my case.a. Why does the BTH config on the MT create a firewall rule blocking remote client to local LAN interface?
I'm not sure it's needed if proxied, but if you have default firewall and public IP, then the WG port does have to be allowed on "input". AFAIK it wouldn't be needed if proxied... But BTH does NOT seem to vary the dynamic firewall rules, so may just be superfluous if proxied.b. Why does the BTH config on the MT create an input chain rule - because the router is still responsible for sending the handshake accepted back to the user via the MT Relay???
The port is calculated and NOT changeable. I'd imagine the port may be different than mine if proxied — Mikrotik's BTH proxy server does not have unlimited IP, but a lot of ports.c. Does the BTH automatically select the new listening port and is that changeable by the admin?
The masquerade means you do NOT need routes back to any of your LANs, since they'd get NAT'ed to the router's IP by the BTH NAT masquerade rule. It could check the interface, but the IP restriction alone works.d. I dont get the BTH automatically creating a source-nat rule on the router and an incomplete rule at that??
SMALL PROGRESS.Mine is empty. Not sure how the "back-to-home-lan-restricted-peers" address-list in firewall gets populated actually. So rule does nothing in my case.a. Why does the BTH config on the MT create a firewall rule blocking remote client to local LAN interface?
I'm not sure it's needed if proxied, but if you have default firewall and public IP, then the WG port does have to be allowed on "input". AFAIK it wouldn't be needed if proxied... But BTH does NOT seem to vary the dynamic firewall rules, so may just be superfluous if proxied.b. Why does the BTH config on the MT create an input chain rule - because the router is still responsible for sending the handshake accepted back to the user via the MT Relay???
The port is calculated and NOT changeable. I'd imagine the port may be different than mine if proxied — Mikrotik's BTH proxy server does not have unlimited IP, but a lot of ports.c. Does the BTH automatically select the new listening port and is that changeable by the admin?
The masquerade means you do NOT need routes back to any of your LANs, since they'd get NAT'ed to the router's IP by the BTH NAT masquerade rule. It could check the interface, but the IP restriction alone works.d. I dont get the BTH automatically creating a source-nat rule on the router and an incomplete rule at that??
The IP firewall filter is there regardless (7.14beta4) – it's the address-list that is empty. No address, "forward" rule doesn't hit.SMALL PROGRESS.
a. The firewall rule is not automatically created on the non public IP MT ROUTER or is it, since yours is empty??
Correct, in the proxy case, should not be needed. But you can't remove, so dunno for sure. In the direct connection method, the port is still random I believe, so dynamic input filter rule make sense.b. So your intimating that it's the MT proxy WG server that returns the handshake back to client and not the non-public IP and thus i nput chain rule is NOT required.
On your router is where masquerade happens. It essentially hide the BTH IP address from the rest of the network, which allow everything to be reachable via your router to the BTH client app. It's a dirty/easy trick to use the router IP for BTH/WG peer traffic. But...in the "always VLAN" model, with firewall protections...this approach would be sacrilegious.c. Masquerade rule is ON THE ROUTER or on the PROXY server???? STILL MAKES ZERO SENSE.
This is a new feature, when you have your own BTH connection, you can make a shared connection for your friend. For this friend you can add a checkbox in the app, that only allows the friend to go to internet, but not see your LAN.Not sure how the "back-to-home-lan-restricted-peers" address-list in firewall gets populated actually.
If the intention is to provide access to the Internet only, then I would name this option accordingly. Changing LAN to !WAN in that firewall rule will make it more generic and applicable to configurations slightly different from standard like mine.For this friend you can add a checkbox in the app, that only allows the friend to go to internet, but not see your LAN.
Correct. If you have a public IP and thus NOT using the relay, under /ip/cloud "BTH VPN", it will show "reachable directly (region: ... ip:... rtt: 59.581ms)" next to "VPN Relay IPv4 Status".If im not wrong if you have public IP then BTH will not use mikrotik relay server but your public IP instead.
I guess now I have questions...3) using hole punching. this means relay only helps to find both ends, but traffic will go direct.
Concur with questions AMMO. A technical paper would be highly appreciated. MT is doing some neat sheite with wireguard but its tantalizingly out of my grasp of comprehending to the degree to what I would like. Its funny it took them so long to fix the lost comms with WG server issue but at least they didnt stop there and have really made an effort to give us more functionality.I guess now I have questions...3) using hole punching. this means relay only helps to find both ends, but traffic will go direct.
Under what conditions does it use hole punching?
Does that require the BTH app, or can a normal WG use "hole punched" BTH too?
Basically I cannot picture how hole punching would work with WG (and not in the docs)
This especially. How would the cloud instance create a hole to two entities that have no public IP aka CGNAT, then faciliate a direct connection without relay???Basically I cannot picture how hole punching would work with WG (and not in the docs)
How would the cloud instance create a hole to two entities that have no public IP...???Basically I cannot picture how hole punching would work with WG (and not in the docs)
I can see how the BTH iOS/Android app could do this, since port might need changing. But I'm not sure it be possible when use a standard WG client. But dunno.When such outgoing connections are made by the router's BTH client and the iOS/Android BTH client, some unique identifier (e.g. router's serial no) must be passed to the MikroTik cloud. This identifier will help the BTH service in the cloud to logically link these 2 connections.
Business Decisions:so what's the point of not supporting other architectures like mmips, taking into account the huge number of devices out there?
Zerotier generally tries to NOT directly relay through their servers; instead, they use the servers to "punch holes" through nat so that a direct connection can be established, and ZT is not in the data plane of the feed. Relays are an absolute last resort with ZT. Normally your latency and throughput drops notably if you have to relay through ZT. The NAT hole-punching is really quite amazing on ZT...Although latency is pretty bad if relayed, things do route/connect. I see ping times in the 600-800ms range using BTH with relay from phone to router. This router also has ZeroTier, so if disconnect from BTH and use ZT as VPN instead, latency is about 150-250ms in same ping test. I'd imagine difference is ZT roots are closer than Latvia...not that ZeroTier is inherently faster, just way closer in proximity to California.
BTH basically does all the same things. Direct connection first, if that does not work, it tries hole punching (on android currently), if that does not work, only then it goes through our relays. Currently we only have relays in EU and US, but more are coming.Zerotier generally tries to NOT directly relay through their servers; instead, they use the servers to "punch holes" through nat so that a direct connection can be established, and ZT is not in the data plane of the feed. Relays are an absolute last resort with ZT. Normally your latency and throughput drops notably if you have to relay through ZT. The NAT hole-punching is really quite amazing on ZT...Although latency is pretty bad if relayed, things do route/connect. I see ping times in the 600-800ms range using BTH with relay from phone to router. This router also has ZeroTier, so if disconnect from BTH and use ZT as VPN instead, latency is about 150-250ms in same ping test. I'd imagine difference is ZT roots are closer than Latvia...not that ZeroTier is inherently faster, just way closer in proximity to California.
How can someone find this checkbox? I select new share and below it just says "acess to home network" "acess to internet" and in new share settings i can only select when in expires, use router DNS and Allowed IPs.This is a new feature, when you have your own BTH connection, you can make a shared connection for your friend. For this friend you can add a checkbox in the app, that only allows the friend to go to internet, but not see your LAN.Not sure how the "back-to-home-lan-restricted-peers" address-list in firewall gets populated actually.
you just described it yourself.acess to home network" "acess to internet"
Its unbelievable, they have Wireguard already implemented on mmips. mmips devices, such as hEX are probably their most sold devices ever...I've been using Wireguard on my main router, an hEX (mmips) for some time, running great. (...)
(...) so what's the point of not supporting other architectures like mmips, taking into account the huge number of devices out there?
I was thinking the same, this does not even need to be in the log. I disabled Wireguard logging with !wireguard for now. I rather wait for a more stable 7.15 version. Thank you for temporary solution.Supposedly fixed in 7.15beta6.
There is also a workaround if you modify the logging rules to numb down those messages but in my book these shouldn't even be displayed (it's debug, not info)
ip/firewall/filter/print
0 D ;;; back-to-home-vpn
chain=forward action=drop src-address-list=back-to-home-lan-restricted-peers out-interface-list=LAN
Version 7.14.1 is supposed to fix this problem:I was thinking the same, this does not even need to be in the log. I disabled Wireguard logging with !wireguard for now. I rather wait for a more stable 7.15 version. Thank you for temporary solution.Supposedly fixed in 7.15beta6.
There is also a workaround if you modify the logging rules to numb down those messages but in my book these shouldn't even be displayed (it's debug, not info)
Something has been fixed. With version 7.14, "ghost" TX packets appeared in the BTH interface: And now that TX traffic has disappeared: But, unfortunately, those annoying logs are still shown in the BTH interface:*) wireguard - do not attempt to connect to peer without specified endpoint-address;
Still same bug on 7.14.2Idem...
With the latest update 7.14.1 the logging problems with the handshake have NOT been solved, both in the wireguard road-warrior links and with BTH.
BR.
back-to-home-vpn: [peer19] CHWCHPuLuweWVZkq3r2HynUP59yxk3GsMX4i9XamAQw=: Handshake for peer did not complete after 20 attempts, giving up