Gargoyle 1.11.0 Release Candidate 1

[yabba235]

I don’t think we will support it until it is finished.
Last I checked it was marked as “source only” i.e. not ready for the big time.
When it is ready, we can use it to replace ar71xx.

I’m glad that it is working well for you, and this should bode well for Gargoyle in the future.
That being said, I don’t think fastpath will be compatible with Gargoyle, but I am yet to test it.

First I have to clarify one thing: without support for flow offloading, it makes no sense to use gargoyle, because I will have a too-slow internet connection from my provider.
Currently there is no fastpath in openwrt, there is flow offloading instead, but he is only present in kernel 4.14.xx. This version of the kernel min. for architecture a71xx is present in the new architecture of ath79.
It is currently in the test version, but it certainly works on these routers:
D-LINK DIR-825 B1
NETGEAR WNDR3700
NETGEAR WNDR3700 V2
NETGEAR WNDR3800
Phicomm K2T
TP-Link Archer C7 V2
TP-Link RE450 V2
TP-Link WDR3600
TP-Link WDR4300
TP-Link WDR4900 V2
TP-Link WR1043 V1
TP-Link WR1043 V2
TP-Link WR1043 V3
TP-Link WR1043 V4
TP-Link WR2543 V1
Ubiquiti UniFi AC Pro
Ubiquiti UniFi AC-Mesh
Ubiquiti UniFi AC-Mesh Pro
Ubiquiti UniFi AC-Lite

That's why I know it will be with gargoyle. which is, after all, openwrt-based.
I would like to test versions for ath79, I do not know how to add this target to sources gargoyle.
Therefore, please describe how to do it.
All needed sources to compiling working images are on
https://github.com/openwrt/

[ispyisail]

Please can somebody give me an insight for a wrt3200,
the new revision that can not be flashed with 1.10,
1.11 RC1 or 1.11x gargoyle-ispy September and why?

I don't understand the question?

[Lantis]

I don’t think we will support it until it is finished.
Last I checked it was marked as “source only” i.e. not ready for the big time.
When it is ready, we can use it to replace ar71xx.

I’m glad that it is working well for you, and this should bode well for Gargoyle in the future.
That being said, I don’t think fastpath will be compatible with Gargoyle, but I am yet to test it.

First I have to clarify one thing: without support for flow offloading, it makes no sense to use gargoyle, because I will have a too-slow internet connection from my provider.
Currently there is no fastpath in openwrt, there is flow offloading instead, but he is only present in kernel 4.14.xx. This version of the kernel min. for architecture a71xx is present in the new architecture of ath79.
It is currently in the test version, but it certainly works on these routers:
D-LINK DIR-825 B1
NETGEAR WNDR3700
NETGEAR WNDR3700 V2
NETGEAR WNDR3800
Phicomm K2T
TP-Link Archer C7 V2
TP-Link RE450 V2
TP-Link WDR3600
TP-Link WDR4300
TP-Link WDR4900 V2
TP-Link WR1043 V1
TP-Link WR1043 V2
TP-Link WR1043 V3
TP-Link WR1043 V4
TP-Link WR2543 V1
Ubiquiti UniFi AC Pro
Ubiquiti UniFi AC-Mesh
Ubiquiti UniFi AC-Mesh Pro
Ubiquiti UniFi AC-Lite

That's why I know it will be with gargoyle. which is, after all, openwrt-based.
I would like to test versions for ath79, I do not know how to add this target to sources gargoyle.
Therefore, please describe how to do it.
All needed sources to compiling working images are on
https://github.com/openwrt/

While I misspoke, trust that I know the difference between flow offloading and fastpath. I’m very active on Openwrt as well. I use the terms interchangeably out of laziness.

When I say it might be incompatible, what I mean is that it would circumvent the features that make Gargoyle great. Like monitoring bandwidth, qos, quotas, restrictions etc. this is because the flow offloading May bypass 1 or all of the required parts of the iptables in order to “go fast”.
As I said, I haven’t tested the implications, but I have a feeling this will be the outcome.

There are plenty of higher end devices capable of pushing higher speeds through Gargoyle.

Like I said before, I’m not going to look at it until it is ready. I expect early next year.
If you want to look yourself, gargoyles source is available at:
https://github.com/ericpaulbishop/gargo ... ge?files=1

[Lantis]

Please can somebody give me an insight for a wrt3200,
the new revision that can not be flashed with 1.10,
1.11 RC1 or 1.11x gargoyle-ispy September and why?

What version can you flash?

I am right now on 1.11x ispy September and just show 1.11rc1 and was wondering should I try it?

Either version is fine and likely identical. If it’s working, stick with it until the next update.

[danielwritesback]

Which file do I use for my Linksys E4200? I don't actually need the 5ghz, but I am in need of good 2.4ghz wifi, and the Gargoyle QOS.

It isn’t compiled for Gargoyle (probably due to lack of 5ghz support). You would need to build it yourself from the brcm47xx target.

The 5ghz wasn't needed. I chose to take the shortcut of purchasing an e3000 for the exploration purposes.

Edit: It did load. It had BG and A wireless, but it is an N router. The 1.11 e3000 file doesn't support an e3000 router. At the first power cycle, it bricked. It was recoverable with tftp.
Trying again with 1.10... Same except worse--it took four hours longer to remove.
Basically,
There's no broadcom wl wireless drivers, but rather a generic that malfunctions the e3000 and probably its twin, wrt610v2 is equally futile. OpenWRT's drivers don't work well. So, you don't need to make broadcom files.

[ninderrycomp]

Perhaps a stupid question, but I'll ask anyway. There are X86-64 images available - does this mean it should be possible to run Gargoyle in a virtual machine? I would love to run Gargoyle within KVM. I've tried OPNsense but it doesn't have quota functionality which is a bummer

[ispyisail]

There are X86-64 images available - does this mean it should be possible to run Gargoyle in a virtual machine?

yes

[yabba235]

While I misspoke, trust that I know the difference between flow offloading and fastpath. I’m very active on Openwrt as well. I use the terms interchangeably out of laziness.

When I say it might be incompatible, what I mean is that it would circumvent the features that make Gargoyle great. Like monitoring bandwidth, qos, quotas, restrictions etc. this is because the flow offloading May bypass 1 or all of the required parts of the iptables in order to “go fast”.
As I said, I haven’t tested the implications, but I have a feeling this will be the outcome.

There are plenty of higher end devices capable of pushing higher speeds through Gargoyle.

Like I said before, I’m not going to look at it until it is ready. I expect early next year.
If you want to look yourself, gargoyles source is available at:
https://github.com/ericpaulbishop/gargo ... ge?files=1

I know where there are sources, but I do not know how to add a new target to them
BTW:
I know is many new routers but my is fine for me, so I don't want buy new - this is silly deal.

[Lantis]

Just an update for people who might think this is going nowhere.
I've spent the last 2 weeks attempting to squeeze every last drop of space out of the Gargoyle firmware, because while the 4mb devices not working is completely inevitable (and acceptable in my eyes), binning 8mb devices just yet would be a shame for now.

The catch is probably going to be:
1. If you have one of these devices, you're going to need to use extroot or an external plugin root
2. Once you have this setup, you will need to install 4 or 5 new plugins depending on what you want to use Gargoyle for to re-add functionality that just won't fit without these measures

I've got a lot of testing still left to do, but i hope to have an RC2 out in 2-3 weeks time depending on results.

[danielwritesback]

Triage ideas...
(for 8mb or maybe even smaller routers)
You probably don't need to include BWmon and quotas in 8mb devices. That's the first thing the owners of older devices will turn off. If necessary, eliminate every USB thing, since the speed is quite bad on older devices and slows down the cpu that could have been doing the more important job of internet routing.
Likewise VPN could be optional, since the encryption work is not well suited to slower cpu's. The tor feature is not good for a whole network (more of a security hazard than helper). The time server is unnecessary when provided without a 123 redirect for causing client devices to use it. The geolocation is a somewhat invasive overstep. There's a bit of left-over ipv6 in there. And, there seems to be a redundant layer of regulatory, causing an extraneous decrease at the 2.4ghz wireless, sometimes half of half (could use the disk space for something more useful than that). You know, anything labor-causing, could be triaged.

I do like the dynamic dns feature (but the pc that needs it could do that job).

Keepers...
The QOS is of great value. The restriction rules are helpful. The port forwarding is useful. The firewall helps (although drop would be better than reject). Status overview, connected hosts, connection list, are helpful.

Mainly...
Wireless and router would be the main idea, and Gargoyle's excellent QOS is probably expected. As for anything far beyond that scope, there is different equipment available.
I think that a Diet Gargoyle may even fit 4mb devices, possibly. That's the thing too--I think that the lighweight efficient version needs a different name, such as Gargoyle Lite, or Diet Gargoyle. much prefer the latter.