I’m a happy user of a Flint 2 that I bought some weeks ago. As far as I understood the Wireguard server created from the default interface is not correctly recognised from the LuCI interface and it doesn’t use the LuCI protocol packages.
I’d like to know if it is planned to have the wireguard server compatible with the luci protocol or not, and why it is not currently compatible. I tried to search for the reasons behind this decision but I didn’t find anything useful, and I apologize in advance if something has already been written somewhere.
If they want to do it now they will make huge changes, because of their configuration.
In OpenWrt wireguard servers got stored in the network config, and also have a little more problematic organization on raw view, but that is also taste.
In gl inet everything is put in the configuration wireguard, but the scripts which do the configuration pulling also need to be migrated to OpenWrts version.
Personally I think they can choose to not do, because they are a bussiness and they have zero control over changes by OpenWrt which may negatively impact one of their core features their routers advertise from that point of view I can understand that, that they want something that always works.
From a programmer view I would say I absolutely love interopability because this prevents to do huge refactories which then could cause more issues because it is already compatible, but realisticly this is why you need to do that on the very beginning on a project, and what I see is while there was a time some things are made interopable to some firewall rules being shown in luci rather than hidden in iptables, you see they go straight the opposite from it with all these closed source sdks
And then you also have amnezia, I have tried to include it in my own personal images on OpenWrt vanilla but it won't compile alot of ongoing issues with broken manifests and APK i didn't want to bother with, the packages are there also not official supported for luci, and there is a long stale discussion about this on OpenWrt GitHub too, one thinks a copy of the original luci proto is wrong, the other wants it as a addon hook, and others are afraid it gets abandoned, these can be factors they have to consider too because it is out of their control .
I ran into that too when setting up WireGuard on my Flint 2. As far as I could tell, the LuCI backend doesn’t fully recognize the built-in WireGuard instance because it’s managed by the custom firmware layer instead of the standard OpenWrt LuCI protocol modules. It’s not really a bug—just a design difference. I ended up managing the server through SSH and manual config files instead, which gave me more control anyway. If you want deeper visibility into traffic performance, tools like Openvault’s broadband analytics can help identify how the VPN affects throughput.
