Sorry to chime in like this. I haven't even read the linked documentation, but whatever the final solution will be, I would prefer if we committed the lowest, safe power levels while we are actively researching, deciding and implementing a final solution. We can always raise limits later on. On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 10:02 PM Seth Forshee <sforshee@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 04:34:13PM +0900, Sungbo Eo wrote: > > On 2021-12-18 06:55, sforshee@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 09:19:50AM +0000, Asura Liu (asuliu) wrote: > > > > From 3db25ea674232fea6a5efca292f6ed3fd8eba7a2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > > > From: Asura Liu <asuliu@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 16:46:28 +0800 > > > > Subject: [PATCH] wireless-regdb: Update regulatory rules for the US on 6 GHz > > > > band > > > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > > > > > > > > According to FCC 20-51, FCC adopts rules to unlicensed use of the 6 GHz band: > > > > "59. Third, the Commission limits the low-power indoor access points to lower power levels than the standard-power access points that operate under the control of an AFC. Consistent with the Commission's approach for the existing U-NII bands, the Commission specifies both a maximum power spectral density and an absolute maximum transmit power, both in terms of EIRP. Specifically, the Commission allows a maximum radiated power spectral density of 5 dBm per 1 megahertz and an absolute maximum radiated channel power of 30 dBm for the maximum permitted 320-megahertz channel (or 27 dBm for a 160-megahertz channel). In addition, to ensure that client devices remain in close proximity to the indoor access points, the Commission limits their PSD and maximum transmit power to 6 dB below the power permitted for the access points." > > > > See https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/05/26/2020-11236/unlicensed-use-of-the-6-ghz-band > > > > > > > > And 47 CFR § 15.407 describe this as following: > > > > (a) (5) For an indoor access point operating in the 5.925-7.125 GHz band, the maximum power spectral density must not exceed 5 dBm e.i.r.p. in any 1-megahertz band. In addition, the maximum e.i.r.p. over the frequency band of operation must not exceed 30 dBm. > > > > (a) (8) For client devices operating under the control of an indoor access point in the 5.925-7.125 GHz bands, the maximum power spectral density must not exceed −1 dBm e.i.r.p. in any 1-megahertz band, and the maximum e.i.r.p. over the frequency band of operation must not exceed 24 dBm. > > > > > > Thanks for the patch. A couple of quick notes about the patch > > > description. It's preferred to wrap lines in the body at around 75 > > > characters, and it's required that you include a Signed-off-by tag > > > indicating your agreement to the DCO for your contribution (see > > > CONTRIBUTING). > > > > > > Additional comments below. > > > > > > > --- > > > > db.txt | 6 ++++++ > > > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/db.txt b/db.txt > > > > index b898799..c6ef9b6 100644 > > > > --- a/db.txt > > > > +++ b/db.txt > > > > @@ -1606,6 +1606,12 @@ country US: DFS-FCC > > > > # https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/05/03/2021-08802/use-of-the-5850-5925-ghz-band > > > > # max. 33 dBm AP @ 20MHz, 36 dBm AP @ 40Mhz+, 6 dB less for clients > > > > (5850 - 5895 @ 40), (27), NO-OUTDOOR, AUTO-BW, NO-IR > > > > + # 6ghz band > > > > + # https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/05/26/2020-11236/unlicensed-use-of-the-6-ghz-band > > > > + # https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-51A1_Rcd.pdf > > > > + # max. 30 dBm AP @ 320MHz, 27 dBm AP @ 160MHz, 6 dB less for clients > > > > + (5925 - 7125 @ 320), (30), NO-OUTDOOR, AUTO-BW > > > > + (5925 - 7125 @ 320), (24), NO-OUTDOOR, AUTO-BW, NO-IR > > > > > > The kernel doesn't currently support multiple rules with different flags > > > for the same range. This is an issue that's come up several times, but > > > so far nothing has been done about it. > > > > > > Even ingoring that, I don't think these rules accomplish the intended > > > purpose. There's nothing that would require a client device to use the > > > NO-IR rule, so they could end up using the higher power limit and > > > transmitting before detecting transmission from an AP. > > > > > > I also suspect that we should be able to express the AFC requirement in > > > the database before permitting AP operation in this range. > > > > > > Currently I think the best we're able to do is to use the lowest common > > > denominator, which is the 24 dBm rule with NO-IR. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Seth > > > > Hi, sorry for intruding. > > > > I thought max EIRP rule for larger bandwidth also applies to smaller > > bandwidth, that means we would use 24 dBm tx power with 20 MHz channel as > > well. But the regulation limits PSD to -1 dBm/MHz and it leads to 12 dBm for > > 20 MHz. Shouldn't we use 12 dBm rule to fit the smallest bandwidth? > > > > I still don't understand exactly how the rules work, my apologies if I am > > mistaken. > > Before I respond, let me be upfront about my limitations. I'm not an RF > engineer. My day job no longer has anything to do with wireless and has > not for a number of years now. I haven't had time to really keep up with > recent developments either, so my impressions are based on some light > research and what I remember of information I rarely use nowadays. > > After doing a little bit of reading, I suspect that you are probably > right (in principle at least, I didn't check the math). It seems there's > been a movement towards specifying PSD so that larger bandwidths can > effectively have a higher max EIRP than lower bandwitdths to overcome > diminishing SNR with increasing bandwidth. > > That leaves us in the unfortunate position of needing to specify an EIRP > suitable for a bandwidth of 20 MHz when larger bandwidths could be using > a higher power limit. It seems like the Linux regulatory framework needs > to evolve to support PSD limits. I don't currently have the time or the > inclination to do this work though, and until someone does we're stuck > with the status quo. > > Thanks, > Seth > > _______________________________________________ > wireless-regdb mailing list > wireless-regdb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless-regdb _______________________________________________ wireless-regdb mailing list wireless-regdb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless-regdb
