From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail2.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.173]:39383 "EHLO mail2.candelatech.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751690AbbFJT6x (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:58:53 -0400 Message-ID: <557896FC.8040204@candelatech.com> (sfid-20150610_215855_788810_B10477C2) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:58:52 -0700 From: Ben Greear MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Johannes Berg CC: "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: Allowing station to over-ride default VHT-oper element? References: <5578901C.60502@candelatech.com> (sfid-20150610_212943_327894_FFEA768B) <1433966120.3145.15.camel@sipsolutions.net> In-Reply-To: <1433966120.3145.15.camel@sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 06/10/2015 12:55 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 12:29 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: > >> First, is this even a valid thing to do, or does VHT imply >> that stations are always available to do 80Mhz? > > According to the spec, a VHT STA must support 80 MHz: > > 802.11ac-2013, 22.1.1: > > A VHT STA shall support the following features: > [...] > - 20 MHz, 40 MHz, and 80 MHz channel widths > > Consequently, there's no bit indicating whether or not 80 MHz bandwidth > is supported (like there is, for VHT, indicating 40 MHz is supported or > not.) > > Also it is invalid to advertise a VHT capabilities IE and an HT > capabilities IE without 40 MHz. Ok, thanks for that..one less piece of work for me to do :) >>From what I can tell, it *IS* ok to have an AP do VHT on 40Mhz though? Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com