Search Linux Wireless

Re: second wifi card enforce CN reg dom

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, 2018-04-12 at 08:18 -0700, Steve deRosier wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:51 AM, Arend van Spriel
> <arend.vanspriel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 4/12/2018 10:42 AM, solsTiCe d'Hiver wrote:
> > > 
> > > Hi.
> > > 
> > > This is beyond my comprehension that you could assert this is a
> > > non issue.
> > 
> > 
> > Well. I am just saying that it is by design. There is no way for
> > the
> > regulatory code to determine where you and your hardware actually
> > reside so
> > instead it takes a conservative approach.
> > 
> 
> To say it another way: mixing regulatory domains on your host system
> should result in a _smaller_ set of channels - ie only those channels
> at the intersection of the two.
> 
> And another wrinkle to consider - one of the 802.11 amendments (can't
> remember which one) actually causes the radio to listen to the 

802.11d I believe, from the early 2000s.

Dan

> beacons
> around it, determine what the local regulatory domain is based on the
> beacons it hears, and then lock to that regulatory domain. It's
> possible for that information to be propagated up to the card's host
> and the regulatory domain then would affect both cards. That's how
> it's supposed to work, though I don't factually know Linux does this
> in all cases.  Could it be you're somewhere where CN is the local
> regulatory domain and the TL-WN722N has this feature?
> 
> In any case, as Arend points out, despite the hand-wringing that
> regulatory domains cause users trying to do something particular,
> between certain rules and regulations and certain manufacturers bad
> interpretations and implementations around it, there's little that
> can
> be done about it. Fact is, your radio must comply to whatever
> regulatory domain you are in, otherwise it's breaking the rules. And
> people breaking the regulatory rules is part of what's gotten
> governments to pass even worse (for us OSS guys) laws that tighten
> those rules down further.
> 
> You asked who to contact. Its not the LKML - it's your relevant
> government body. And certain manufacturers who improperly interpret
> said rules because it's easier for them.
> 
> - Steve
> 
> --
> Steve deRosier
> Cal-Sierra Consulting LLC
> https://www.cal-sierra.com/



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Host AP]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Wireless Personal Area Network]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Wireless Regulations]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Kernel]     [IDE]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]

  Powered by Linux