It's the second time that you (Ben and Steve) are implying that I might break the law. But why are you saying that ? I am not gonna repeat myself again. And for the patch, it is also implied that I am able to write one. 2018-04-12 19:11 GMT+02:00 Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On 04/12/2018 10:05 AM, solsTiCe d'Hiver wrote: >> >> Hi. >> >> I thought I made myself clear. >> I leave in France. My system(s) is/are set up to use FR as default >> regulatory domain. >> >> But when I plug in that tp-link card, I am restricted to use CN >> regulatory domain. Why am I the only one to see this as a problem ? >> >> I know that one can only have one regdom defined on the system. I have >> set it up myself. So why is it changed behind my back by some card or >> whatever ? >> Like I said, I am left with the option, to disable crda, or to use 2 >> systems, one for each card ! >> >> Or may be try Windows when this is not messed up like that ??? Well, >> it's not on Windows that I will be able to use monitor mode, anyway. > > > You can hack the ath9k-htc driver to allow over-riding the regdom > of the NIC, but that requires an out of tree patch and is probably > against the law in your country since the NIC may then not be able to > pass the regulatory requirements. > > Thanks, > Ben > > >> >> Never mind. >> >> 2018-04-12 17:52 GMT+02:00 Dan Williams <dcbw@xxxxxxxxxx>: >>> >>> 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/ >> >> > > > -- > Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com >
