From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Larry Finger Subject: Re: [RFC] Proposed structure for Regulatory/Geographical Wireless database Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 14:24:29 -0500 Message-ID: <445CF7ED.9080705@lwfinger.net> References: <445BB22B.30505@lwfinger.net> <200605062048.46390.mb@bu3sch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mtiwmhc13.worldnet.att.net ([204.127.131.117]:24536 "EHLO mtiwmhc13.worldnet.att.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750781AbWEFTYi (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 May 2006 15:24:38 -0400 To: Michael Buesch , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Faidon Liambotis , Rick Jones , Ulrich Kunitz , Harald Welte , Jouni Malinen , Christoph Hellwig In-Reply-To: <200605062048.46390.mb@bu3sch.de> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Michael Buesch wrote: > On Friday 05 May 2006 22:14, you wrote: >> # Groups follow countries >> # >> Group 0 - Unspecified Country >> # >> # Band Ch. Range Ch. Spacing Power Flags > ^^^^^^^^^ > Aren't there countries around, where there are gaps in the > allowed channel numbers? (Especially for 802.11a) So it would > not be an allowed "range", but an allowed list of channels. > Yes, but the gaps are only in 802.11a that I know about. If there is a gap, then I use a second line as was shown in the example for the standard EU specs. In most cases, other factors change as well. I initially was going to specify the allowed channels, but the tables got very long. This way is more compact. Larry