I still don't know what you're trying to achieve...or even how you set up your network.
Are you still trying this?
If yes, please state so. Didn't you wrote in that thread that you got it to work?
If you're on something different, please outline it detailed.
My crystal ball just shows foggy thingies, so i can't help you with that little bit of information you're sharing.
Typically, the wifi device (wlan0 in this case) does not belong in the /etc/config/network file. This line should be removed. The wwan network should be associated with the sta mode wifi config in the /etc/config/wireless file.
Let's also take a look at your other config files, while we are at it:
Please copy the output of the following commands and post it here using the "Preformatted text </> " button:
Remember to redact passwords, MAC addresses and any public IP addresses you may have:
Although, I think it gets added in the network file but luci? I will have a closer look next time. As stated in the posted above yours I now have the wifi working but have encountered another problem.
This is related to the screenshot that says "connection failed"?
How is that computer connected to the router (wired or wireless)? Does it have a link? What about an IP address?
If you actually post all of the key config files, we may be able to spot the problems (so the 3 I mentioned and the network config, if anything has changed since post 16)..
Well, yes! It was the lan interface which has the 4 ports bridged. One port connected via ether cable to my laptop and another connected via ethernet to my desktop machine.
Well, this problem is moot now since I managed to lock myself out of OpenWrt while trying to confirm your statement about wifi interface suppose to be in wireless file.
Sorry you are locked out. What did you change? The lan (especially the Ethernet ports) should not be affected by a change to the wan/wwan or the WiFi radio configuration, so it sounds like something else might be going on.
I tried scanning for a network to connect to but while I was connected to said network. I was connected via wireless because of this issue with the lan settings.
I recommend removing the gateway and broadcast addresses from the lan network interface definition. Those will happen automatically in the background.
I also recommend removing broadcast from the wan (again, it'll happen automatically). This shouldn't cause a problem, but it's just cleaner without.
You had disabled the dhcp server which was the problem. This should be disabled if you have a DHCP server already on a given subnet, but in the vast majority of cases, it should be enabled. In this case, you disabled the DHCP on your lan subnet, so there was nothing to provide DHCP addresses to the hosts on that network. (DHCP is not absolutely required for a network to function, of course. But without it, you must set all of the downstream devices with static IPs (manually configured on each device; some devices don't even have a user interface to let you do this))
Why does it have those sections if they shouldn't be edited? In regard to the gateway it says "10.1.1.1" which, is the ip address on the main router when I had manually set it to "10.1.1.4" the address of the wifi interface. I would have thought it would need the wifi interface address?
They are there so that you can override defaults or make special configurations where needed. But the defaults are usually good for the vast majority of users. It is only necessary to change them if you are doing something that is a bit more custom. It's like the defaults on so many systems these days (ranging from your car to your TV to your computer and everything in between) -- yes, you can change lots of settings, but they're configured with default states that are appropriate for a very large part of the user base.
the gateway is the address of the device that connects to the "next" network (i.e. the internet in many cases). The nominally correct address for the gateway is actually 10.1.1.1 because that is the address of the actual upstream gateway. 10.1.1.4 is held by the router, it's not actually the gateway, but I think this actually works because that address has an associated gateway, but is not technically correct to use it this way. Further, normally the gateway must be defined within the same subnet, and this is not... although it does work because you're defining a gateway that the routing table already understands, it looks strange.
In many cases with this type of normal routed configuration, it is best to omit the gateway because it will cause all routing to break if the wan's network is changed. When omitted, the router will use the default gateway to route traffic from the lan to the upstream (i.e. internet) networks... that default gateway is the address on the wan and is automatically populated in the routing table.
it 
