Johannes, On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 10:37:26AM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > > 8<------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > # Data from "Frequenznutzungsplan" (as published in April 2008), downloaded from > > # http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/cae/servlet/contentblob/38448/publicationFile/2659/Frequenznutzungsplan2008_Id17448pdf.pdf > > # For the 5GHz range also see > > # http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/cae/servlet/contentblob/38216/publicationFile/6579/WLAN5GHzVfg7_2010_28042010pdf.pdf > > # The values have been reduced by a factor of 2 (3db) for non TPC devcies > > # (in other words: devices with TPC can use twice the tx power of this table). > > > > country DE: > > # entries 279004 and 280006 > > (2400 - 2483.5 @ 40), (N/A, 100 mW) > > # entry 303005 > > (5150 - 5250 @ 40), (N/A, 100 mW), NO-OUTDOOR > > # entries 304002 and 305002 > > (5250 - 5350 @ 40), (N/A, 100 mW), NO-OUTDOOR, DFS > > # entries 308002, 309001 and 310003 > > (5470 - 5725 @ 40), (N/A, 500 mW), DFS > > I haven't verified the entries in the Frequenznutzungsplan itself, but > according to the second document this seems fine. I think there ought to > be a comment in the db.txt file indicating the rationale for using 100mW > rather than 200mW. OK, new suggestion. 8<------------------------------------------------------------------------ # Data from "Frequenznutzungsplan" (as published in April 2008), downloaded from # http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/cae/servlet/contentblob/38448/publicationFile/2659/Frequenznutzungsplan2008_Id17448pdf.pdf # For the 5GHz range also see # http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/cae/servlet/contentblob/38216/publicationFile/6579/WLAN5GHzVfg7_2010_28042010pdf.pdf # The values have been reduced by a factor of 2 (3db) for non TPC devices # (in other words: devices with TPC can use twice the tx power of this table). # Note that the docs do not require TPC for 5150--5250; the reduction to # 100mW thus is not strictly required -- however the conservative 100mW # limit is used here as the non-interference with radar and satellite # apps relies on the attenuation by the building walls only in the # absence of DFS; the neighbour countries have 100mW limit here as well. country DE: # entries 279004 and 280006 (2400 - 2483.5 @ 40), (N/A, 100 mW) # entry 303005 (5150 - 5250 @ 40), (N/A, 100 mW), NO-OUTDOOR # entries 304002 and 305002 (5250 - 5350 @ 40), (N/A, 100 mW), NO-OUTDOOR, DFS # entries 308002, 309001 and 310003 (5470 - 5725 @ 40), (N/A, 500 mW), DFS 8<------------------------------------------------------------------------ Can we actually put several entries covering the same frequency range? Then we could put 200mW for DFS and 100mW for non-DFS. This would also address the next issue you raise ... > Also note that there are different requirements depending on the channel > bandwidth, which will eventually come up in Linux too. But I think for > that we need the new database format for that ... yet another thing to > do before we can support 5/10 MHz channels. Indeed. For 5150 -- 5350, the spectral power density may not exceed 10mW/MHz (and overall emitted power in the range per device not 200mW); this gives a limit of 200mW for 20MHz channels or 100mW if no TPC is used for 5250 -- 5350. (For 5470--5725 use 5x those values.) I'm not aware of WLAN devices with narrower channels yet, but if they come into existence, we'd have to reflect it somehow ... Best, -- Kurt Garloff, VP OPS Partner Engineering -- Novell Inc.
Attachment:
pgpSVzgdU5lCJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
