On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 01:20:24PM +1030, Ryan Mounce wrote: > On 24 February 2017 at 02:05, Seth Forshee <seth.forshee at canonical.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 12:22:53AM +1030, Ryan Mounce wrote: > >> Sourced from the current legislation at > >> https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2016C00432 > >> > >> The current rules exceed legal limits between 5250-5330MHz, and permit > >> illegal operation in 5600-5650MHz (disallowed regardless of DFS). > >> > >> Frequency ranges and EIRP limits for all ranges have been updated to > >> match items 59-63, 65 in the linked document. As the rules for AU have > >> never previously mirrored local regulations, changes include a > >> significant increase in the allowable 2.4GHz EIRP and smaller increases > >> in most other bands. > >> > >> In order to allow 80MHz operation between 5650-5730MHz (bordering two > >> bands) the lower, more restrictive band has been rounded up by 5MHz. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Ryan Mounce <ryan at mounce.com.au> > >> --- > >> db.txt | 15 ++++++++++----- > >> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/db.txt b/db.txt > >> index 05108e0..00e81b6 100644 > >> --- a/db.txt > >> +++ b/db.txt > >> @@ -85,12 +85,17 @@ country AT: DFS-ETSI > >> # 60 GHz band channels 1-4, ref: Etsi En 302 567 > >> (57000 - 66000 @ 2160), (40) > >> > >> +# Source: > >> +# https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2016C00432 > >> +# Both DFS-ETSI and DFS-FCC are acceptable per AS/NZS 4268 Appendix B > >> country AU: DFS-ETSI > >> - (2402 - 2482 @ 40), (20) > >> - (5170 - 5250 @ 80), (17), AUTO-BW > >> - (5250 - 5330 @ 80), (24), DFS, AUTO-BW > >> - (5490 - 5710 @ 160), (24), DFS > >> - (5735 - 5835 @ 80), (30) > >> + (2400 - 2483.5 @ 40), (36) > > > > The mention of ETSI EN 300 328 in item 55 (a) leads me to believe that > > this is the limit we should be using, i.e. 500 mW. It is a bit confusing > > though since it seems like such devices would also fall under "digital > > modulation transmitters." > > Item 55 applies only to frequency hopping transmitters e.g. Bluetooth. > As a local, I can say with some degree of certainty that 4W/36dBm is > the correct 2.4GHz ISM EIRP for Australia. It is advertised as the > EIRP in the 802.11d IE of commercial devices e.g. Cisco Aironet APs > and widely deployed ISP gateways in Australia, among other devices > that have received relevant approvals. Okay, looking at that section again that makes sense. > >> + (5150 - 5250 @ 80), (23), NO-OUTDOOR, AUTO-BW > > > > This looks correct. > > > >> + (5250 - 5350 @ 80), (23), NO-OUTDOOR, AUTO-BW, DFS > > > > Since this range requires TPC we need to set the power limit at 100 mW. > > > >> + (5470 - 5600 @ 80), (30), DFS > >> + (5650 - 5730 @ 80), (30), DFS > > > > These ranges also require TPC so we need to set the limit at 500 mW. > > I was unsure about this one. Setting this to 27dBm also affects the > 802.11d country information IE, however when the DFS flag is set a 3dB > 802.11h power constraint IE is also advertised so stations will limit > themselves to (27-3)=24dBm/250mW. > > Given the choice between unnecessarily halving transmit power on > stations and potentially transmitting at twice the permissible power > on APs without TPC I agree that the conservative approach should be > taken for now. Ideally I think that the actual EIRP limits should be > in the regdb and a 3dB constraint should be applied automatically on > APs that cannot support TPC when the DFS flag is set. > > >> + (5730 - 5850 @ 80), (36) > > > > In the document the ranges are 5650-5725 MHz and 5725-5850 MHz. I > > suspect that the existing rules fudge that to line up with the wifi > > channels, which technically is okay because the rules in the former > > range are more restrictive. I wonder if we shouldn't be recording them > > here as per the document and adding AUTO-BW. Johannes, any thoughts? > > I've tested with AUTO-BW and it doesn't work in this case as channel > 144 will be disabled if it doesn't exist entirely within one band. > Fudging the more restrictive rules by a mere 5MHz to fit 802.11 > channels seems to be the status quo. I wonder why AUTO-BW doesn't work. In that case it's certainly fine to keep those ranges as they are. Thanks, Seth
