MT300v2 bridge vs router IPv6?

I find that when I setup the MT300 as a bridge that I can’t talk to it by web or ssh. I have an ISP router that hands it an IP, supposedly, although that is
problematic because the ISP router remembers that IP for the purpose of
listing devices so you cannot really know whether the recent reboot of the
MT300 resulted in a DHCP request that was satisfied. When the MT300
is off the listing is still in the table with the device given as inactive.

I cannot talk to the MT300 in bridge mode unless I disconnect it from everything, meaning no ethernet cables. Then I can talk to it on
by attaching to its WAP.

I haven’t tried attaching my laptop ethernet to the IP router wired switch-port but as far as I know when I am attached by wireless to the IP router I am on an equal footing with the wired port.

I was wanting to run in bridge mode to avoid a router cascade in some
project that I was doing. A router cascade can create problems with NAT
unless you segment the DHCP space between the two routers while running
them on the same subnet. At least that is how I understood it.

But it seems instead that everything is running around on IPv6 and NAT
doesn’t even matter anymore. That’s just a guess, not really a hard fact.

Still I wonder why I can’t talk to mt MT300v2 in bridge mode.

Do you mean wireless bridge? Or wired bridge?

Hi alzhao,

I’m saying that when I set the mode switch to choose router/bridge to “bridge” that I can no longer communicate with the unit after I hook it up to my cable modem. When I log into the cable modem
it says that the GL is at a particular IP but the cable modem cannot ping that IP using its own diagnostics.

The overall setup is “cable” with DHCP.

I also cannot communicate with it on wireless at I don’t really care at this point but if it
is in bridge mode you can’t manage it anymore on wireless or ping it on the WAN port. This is with stock firmware 2.26.