somes sites don't responde
Try to be
even more vague next time. We love nothing better than making wild, unsupported guesses here.
With nothing to go on but your /export, I'll give you a line-by-line critique, with zero expectation that any of this fixes your actual problem, being unstated and ill-defined.
add bridge=bridge comment=defconf interface=*1 internal-path-cost=10 path-cost=10
It's risky to be using logical interface names (*1) in this area of the config, because meanings can shift about as you reconfigure things. If interface #1 happens to refer to one of your off-LAN interfaces at the moment the router boots up, it probably breaks your config by bridging it to the LAN.
I speculate that what happened instead is that when you removed the router's WiFi configuration, you left this config element behind, pointing at nothing now. You should not don't go on expecting it will
continue pointing at nothing. If the intent is to bring the WiFi config back later, you should do that, then say "interface=wifi1" here, or whatever it is you call it. If not, then you should remove this from the bridge entirely.
/ipv6 settings set disable-ipv6=yes forward=no
There's a tiny chance that this is the problem: this vague "some sites" of yours might be IPv6-only sites.
Configuring IPv6 is tricky and far more difficult than it ought to be, given that they sold it to us as better and easier all around. I offer
my guide as one example, but I can't say how much or whether it applies to your local ISP, because once again, you haven't told us anything about that.
add action=accept chain=forward comment=Camaras dst-address=192.168.0.200 in-interface=antel
That rule says that traffic crossing the router (whether LAN to WAN or vice versa) and destined for your .200 LAN address should be allowed, but your ISP won't know how to route traffic directly to private, LAN-side addresses like this one. They may even be blocking all RFC1918 addresses like this. This rule does nothing useful.
add action=dst-nat chain=dstnat comment=Camaras dst-port=8100,9001,9000 protocol=tcp to-addresses=192.168.0.200
This looks like what you were actually trying to do with the above rule,
port-forwarding, but I would strongly encourage you to use your IPSec VPN for things like this instead. IP cameras are
notorious security holes, typically by being left unpatched. Too often, they're outright
unpatchable.
/ip route add disabled=no distance=1 dst-address=0.0.0.0/0 gateway=antel routing-table=main scope=30 suppress-hw-offload=no target-scope=10
This should be redundant with respect to your "/interface pppoe-client add add-default-route=yes…" rule above. It is useless at best, and possibly even
wrong, explaining your symptom.