From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-oi0-x22c.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22c]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1atHYs-00044E-Ef for wireless-regdb@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 21 Apr 2016 16:34:39 +0000 Received: by mail-oi0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id p188so104008317oih.2 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2016 09:34:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=canonical-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=CV+Fr20r3PiVUXN2ZgDns/RpZPZtPf/nAkNLZjQ8L+4=; b=TMf4erHTMNkjIlGBp2pM5U9yYijcFTtwUNkNrBtTZD6bg8qSMJ2naoN7BapEWZzzpH VSd1PZXiBXLDnNEQ683s/znPUfx7yDxB/DkSDc7JeJLxf2nntyBev6MOHMD0gjYmu8h9 ma88bMCpqZgt3TKvlXCZrbmbYE9B9ZO5FwoYxFoeI7mgdrtZYc1WkNA+yYEzR/Gn8Yp4 bu3AHZAYBj5hDZn2Fx/VE+hFNmzTgXewEXcbAJV0VDf/ED8UBbS1CqDiFkeTb5xKuSB0 pbn3amgtXukFpSNPO0qPg1wlh/z5v6yfoRXzcdbYZDH9sJZ3iw5EO227RUmdGge8tnhn QFYA== Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 11:34:10 -0500 From: Seth Forshee Message-ID: <20160421163410.GC95003@ubuntu-hedt> References: <1461113043-30102-1-git-send-email-bordjukov@gmail.com> <20160421140721.GB95003@ubuntu-hedt> <87fuuf54ai.wl-bordjukov@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87fuuf54ai.wl-bordjukov@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [wireless-regdb] Updates for the regulatory rules for Bulgaria List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: "wireless-regdb" Errors-To: wireless-regdb-bounces+johannes=sipsolutions.net@lists.infradead.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: Petko Bordjukov Cc: wireless-regdb@lists.infradead.org List-ID: On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 07:12:53PM +0300, Petko Bordjukov wrote: > On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 17:07:21 +0300, > Seth Forshee wrote: > > This is almost certainly because these frequencies require transmit > > power control. We drop the TX power limits by half (i.e. 3 dB) when TPC > > is required on account of not supporting TPC. > > I was under the impression that the underlying kernel infrastructure had support > for TPC. What I am observing is that hostapd automatically includes the Power > Constraint IE in beacons sent out on any channel with DFS enabled. The default > transmit power reduction is 3dBm. > > This means that the TX power of any clients would be limited to 3dBm below the > TX power of the AP even though it's not required. > > Would there be any merit in providing additional information regarding the TX > power and the target average TX power reduction for the system when TPC is > supported? I'm frankly not certain about the status of kernel support, but my impression was that some drivers might have some level of TPC support but that it's not universal. I really haven't been keeping track of it though. However, even if there is universal TPC support in the kernel we still lack any way to encode the TPC requirement for a given rule in the database or inform the kernel about it. > > > WAS/RLANs 5150-5250 MHz > > > 200 mW maximum mean e.i.r.p. > > > 10 mW/MHz maximum spectral density of the mean e.i.r.p. > > > > If this range doesn't require TPC then it could be bumped up to 200 mW > > (23 dBm). > > Yes, the CRC's list explicitly states that TPC is required in the 5250-5350 MHz > and 5470-5725 MHz bands and there's no further comments on the 5150-5250 MHz > band. EN 301 893 has the notes below for the 5150-5250 MHz band that could have > lead to the 3 dBm drop though, maybe linked to the AUTO-BW flag? > > > NOTE 1: The applicable limit is 20 dBm, except for transmissions whose nominal > > bandwidth falls completely within the band 5 150 MHz to 5 250 MHz, in which > > case the applicable limit is 23 dBm. > > > > NOTE 2: The applicable limit is 7 dBm/MHz, except for transmissions whose > > nominal bandwidth falls completely within the band 5 150 MHz to 5 250 MHz, in > > which case the applicable limit is 10 dBm/MHz. It shouldn't be required for the AUTO-BW flag, so based on everything I'm seeing here 23 dBm seems fine. > I changed the TX power values to mW to be consistent with what is stated in the > CRC's list. I'll resubmit the patch with the values in dBm and with the 3 dBm > drop for the 5250-5350 MHz and 5470-5725 MHz bands. Great, thanks. I think you should be fine to bump up the 5150-5250 MHz rule by 3 dBm as well. If someone knows a reason it shouldn't be raised they can let us know. Thanks, Seth _______________________________________________ wireless-regdb mailing list wireless-regdb@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless-regdb