Gargoyle Forum

QoS is only coded to work on WAN. The menu item should be hidden.
I suppose in theory it could be made to work but at the moment all of the code explicitly expects a WAN connection, which a bridge repeater is not.

Ah! My apologies, a fix for this did go in 7 months ago but it was not brought across to the latest beta builds. https://github.com/ericpaulbishop/gargoyle/commit/9320b6cd8d6c752c62058be3a179f2e566eb5cb2 Depending on your technical skills, you could attempt to patch the JavaScript yourself? Otherwis...

It’s not designed to back up anything except configuration. You’ll find that OpenWrt operates the same. OpenWrt introduced the firmware selector which allows you to bake in extra packages and add custom changes. They have paired it with some smarts on the router to send a list of custom installed pa...

Hi Lantis, I've been struggling with BETA - 2025-10-24 for quite a while trying to setup a wireguard server on my ASRock G10. While my wireguard setup worked perfectly fine with openwrt 23.05 codebase, it fails with latest 24.10 builds. In fact, with 24.10-based builds, wireguard client can success...

A new build has been released with OpenWrt 24.10.5 (+ a few commits) as the base. This includes the fix for CVE-2025-14282 which should have no impact to 99% of users, but please check the linked documentation and ask questions if you are unsure. Links in the first post and on the blog. Thanks to bo...

Confirming the image builds from Gargoyle no problem.

If that’s the one you’re interested in, I’m 95% sure we can do a build for it. I’ll try it shortly and let you know.
I don’t have any way of flash testing it of course.

The latest supported device list is scattered through the code and on my site. Not sure which you would prefer to browse through. In the code, look at the “profile_images” file for each target/profile https://github.com/ericpaulbishop/gargoyle/tree/base_on_openwrt_2410/targets On my site, have a pok...

We support V1, 2, 4 and 5.

If your internet speed is likely to increase, maybe consider a more performant device.

The problem is your choice of IP. 192.168.0.181 is inside the DHCP range, which by default is x.x.x.100-x.x.x.249 When dnsmasq (which handles the DHCP Server role) starts it runs ipcalc.sh "192.168.0.181/255.255.255.0" 100 150 Which returns IP=192.168.0.181 NETMASK=255.255.255.0 BROADCAST=...