> >> > It seems to me that (12, -1) would be pretty much the same as (8, +1) as > >> > far as regulatory is concerned. > >> > >> Yes, just beacons will flows on 12 and not on 8 so from protocol point > >> this is important > > > > Yes, but how is it important to the regulatory regulations? > > I didn't say it does. Well the patch seemed to imply that it is, but ok, this is just how you express things then. > OK. Now I understand your question. The word 'band' is a bit > overloaded. Yeah, sorry. > Regulatory specs uses > 'channel starting frequency' as for 2.4 or 5, 'channel spacing' as for > 10 (Narrow) 20 (Wide) 40 (FAT) and > channel set as list of channels for particular reg domain class such as 36, 48. Right. > I'm not aware of the cases that if (Ch1, +1) is on the same band as > (Ch2, -1) it won't be allowed in some regulatory domain, so your DB > would be OK. Just the protocol doesn't talk in frequencies but in > channels. Right. > When matching against such database you would need to check not only > if you can associate against > X-Y Mhz (40Mhz) but also if you can fall to X (20Mhz) or Y(20MHz) > depending if X or Y is the primary channel. Yeah so I can actually deduce these flags by checking "Can we go up/down from this channel by 20 MHz and still fall into the allowed range" or something like that. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
