From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "John W. Linville" Subject: Re: wireless: recap of current issues (configuration) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:06:33 -0500 Message-ID: <20060116190629.GB5529@tuxdriver.com> References: <20060113212605.GD16166@tuxdriver.com> <20060113213011.GE16166@tuxdriver.com> <20060113221935.GJ16166@tuxdriver.com> <1137191522.2520.63.camel@localhost> <20060114011726.GA19950@shaftnet.org> <43C97605.9030907@pobox.com> <20060115152034.GA1722@shaftnet.org> <20060116170951.GA8596@shaftnet.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: ext Stuffed Crust , Jeff Garzik , Johannes Berg , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: To: Samuel Ortiz Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 08:51:31PM +0200, Samuel Ortiz wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, ext Stuffed Crust wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 09:05:33PM +0200, Samuel Ortiz wrote: > > > Regarding 802.11d and regulatory domains, the stack should also be able to > > > stick to one regulatory domain if asked so by userspace, whatever the APs > > > around tell us. > > > > ...and in doing so, violate the local regulatory constraints. :) > The other option is to conform to whatever the AP you associate with > advertises. In fact, this is how it should be done according to 802.11d. > Unfortunately, this doesn't ensure local regulatory constraints compliance > unless you expect each and every APs to do the Right Thing ;-) If regulators come down on someone, it seems like common sense that they would be more lenient on mobile stations complying with a misconfigured AP than they would be with a mobile station ignoring a properly configured AP? I know expecting common sense from government regulators is optimistic, but still... :-) Of course when we are the AP, the ability to adjust these parameters could be very important. No? John -- John W. Linville linville@tuxdriver.com