@bigsmile ... just ignore @ulmwind's comment. It is not clear why they have such an aversion to WireGuard (there has never been a good justification from this user as to why WireGuard is problematic, therefore we can consider it noise and trolling). The vast majority of users on this forum who have moved to WireGuard have been happy with the results.
Check that the wg tunnel is working by using just the command wg and confirm that the send and receive counts are not zero and there has been a recent handshake. Try to ping the server's tunnel IP if you know it. This appears to be a point to point configuration though so there may not be any IPs on the tunnel.
Check the routing table to confirm that proper routes have been set up. There should be a split route of the whole Internet via wg0 (0.0.0.0/1 and 18.104.22.168/1) and single /32 route to the peer via the regular WAN. Encrypted packets have to be sent by regular WAN instead of placed in the tunnel.
The routing table determines where the kernel tries to send a packet, and the firewall rules determine if it will be allowed to be sent. So you need to consider both.
I can repeat, no problem. OpenVPN is very nice solution with predictable behavior. It can be easily configured to run OpenVPN-client, and OpenVPN-server on the same device. In case of WireGuard it is very difficult task due to limitation of UDP-protocol.
Sure. But it is much harder to configure and it is significantly less performant than Wireguard when running on the same hardware. There are many reasons that a user might want to run a given VPN protocol -- if you prefer OpenVPN, fine... but your comments don't add any value when the user wants to run something else.
Sure, but there are other VPN protocols that can do the same (I'm pretty sure it is possible to do this with Wireguard, too). But this is irrelevant here and in most of the threads in which you have commented where the user is only trying to run in a server or a client context, not both. In this one, the OP was clearly running in a client mode,
OpenVPN can be run on TCP or UDP. But it is actually recommended to be run on UDP because of the "TCP meltdown" scenario. So, while there is an option for TCP, making blanket statements about why OpenVPN is better based on a "limitation of UDP-protocol" is non-sensical.
If I'm being honest here (and I do say this with good intentions), many of the users here simply find your comments on the topic to be useless at best, annoying/trolling at worst. There is no reason or value for you to comment on WG based threads if all you're going to do is tell people to use another protocol. Instead, since you seem to be a fan of OpenVPN, you can a more positive impact here by helping OpenWrt + OpenVPN users debug their OpenVPN related issues -- these do happen with enough regularity to benefit from additional OpenVPN fans/experts.