On Sat, Dec 05, 2020 at 09:24:03PM +0100, b.K.il.h.u+tigbuh@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > Thanks for double checking. Honestly, I've only spent a few hours > skimming through the document and haven't read it through all the way. > > Agreed that both bandwidths should probably be upped to 160. > > Considering § 15.407 (a)(3)(v): shouldn't the flag `PTMP-ONLY` > already signal this infrastructure-mode only restriction? I think > sending a probe request frame before connecting may be considered a > "brief message", and NO-IR would even disallow that. Also, if we added > NO-IR, wouldn't that close the band for AP's running Linux as well? But it's a brief message "after detecting a signal that confirms that an access point is operating on a particular channel." I think that implies a passive scan, then sending an association request only after seeing a beacon from the AP on the channel. I could be wrong though; my memory on the 802.11 protocol is rusty and out of date. Thanks, Seth > > Other than deciding the above questions, should we get back to > finishing this patch after publication sometime next year? There may > be a chance for it to change until then. > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 4:11 PM Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 11:40:30PM +0100, bkil wrote: > > > The new band is called U-NII-4. > > > > The report states in paragraph 203 that the order is effective 60 days > > from publication in the Federal Register, and it looks like they haven't > > even been published in the Federal Register yet. We will need to wait > > for the rules to go into effect before applying any updates. > > > > > The report recommends combining it with 5725-5895 to allow 160 MHz > > > bandwidth, but that's technically not that easy with regdb due to the > > > differing restrictions of the two parts. Marking the line for U-NII-3 > > > NO-OUTDOOR and PTMP-ONLY along with extending its range would be a > > > possible workaround, but this needs to be discussed. > > > > I think it should be sufficient to set the bandwidth of both 5730-5850 > > and 5850-5895 to 160 MHz with AUTO-BW. The kernel will see the AUTO-BW > > flags and calculate a combined rule where 160 MHz is allowed, and for > > the original rules any bandwidth exceeding the available bandwidth of > > the rule will be disallowed. > > > > > I don't see a requirement for TPC, hence reducing EIRP by 3dB is not > > > needed. I've marked it 33dBm (minus 6dB for clients) to cope with 20MHz, > > > but the band can support higher power, though the logic is complicated. > > > > I believe we have an additional requirement from § 15.407 (a)(3)(v): > > > > In the 5.850-5.895 GHz band, client devices must operate under the > > control of an indoor access point. In all cases, an exception exists > > for transmitting brief messages to an access point when attempting to > > join its network after detecting a signal that confirms that an access > > point is operating on a particular channel. > > > > This sounds like a requirement for passive scanning, if so the range > > should also have the NO-IR flag. > > > > Thanks, > > Seth > > > > > > > > The upper subband (5895-5925 MHz) of the new band is reserved for ITS. > > > > > > "We limit unlicensed use to indoor operations in recognition of the > > > potential that ITS licensees may currently be operating" > > > > > > "We also proposed that U-NII-4 devices be permitted to operate at the same > > > power levels as U-NII-3 devices." > > > > > > "For the U-NII-4 band, indoor access point EIRP will be limited to > > > 33 dBm/20 MHz and 36 dBm/40 MHz. When combined with U-NII-3 band spectrum, > > > indoor access point EIRP can scale to 36 dBm for 80 and 160 megahertz > > > channels." > > > > > > "Client devices would be limited to power levels 6 dB below the power > > > limits for access points." > > > > > > "the First Report and Order prohibit U-NII-4 client-to-client > > > communications to protect co-channel incumbent ITS" > > > > > > Signed-off-by: bkil <b.K.il.h.u+tigbuh@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > db.txt | 5 ++++- > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/db.txt b/db.txt > > > index c71a03a..e6dd063 100644 > > > --- a/db.txt > > > +++ b/db.txt > > > @@ -1587,7 +1587,10 @@ country US: DFS-FCC > > > # requirements, we can extend the range by 5 MHz to make the kernel > > > # happy and be able to use channel 144. > > > (5470 - 5730 @ 160), (23), DFS > > > - (5730 - 5850 @ 80), (30) > > > + (5730 - 5850 @ 80), (30), AUTO-BW > > > + # https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-modernizes-59-ghz-band-improve-wi-fi-and-automotive-safety-0 > > > + # max. 33 dBm AP @ 20MHz, 36 dBm AP @ 40Mhz+, 6 dB less for clients > > > + (5850 - 5895 @ 40), (27), NO-OUTDOOR, PTMP-ONLY, AUTO-BW > > > # 60g band > > > # reference: section IV-D https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-16-89A1.pdf > > > # channels 1-6 EIRP=40dBm(43dBm peak) _______________________________________________ wireless-regdb mailing list wireless-regdb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless-regdb
