Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751164AbWAPTHP (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:07:15 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751163AbWAPTHO (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:07:14 -0500 Received: from ra.tuxdriver.com ([24.172.12.4]:44562 "EHLO ra.tuxdriver.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751161AbWAPTHM (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:07:12 -0500 Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:06:33 -0500 From: "John W. Linville" To: Samuel Ortiz Cc: ext Stuffed Crust , Jeff Garzik , Johannes Berg , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: wireless: recap of current issues (configuration) Message-ID: <20060116190629.GB5529@tuxdriver.com> Mail-Followup-To: Samuel Ortiz , ext Stuffed Crust , Jeff Garzik , Johannes Berg , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1433 Lines: 32 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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/