Return-path: Received: from mail-ie0-f180.google.com ([209.85.223.180]:49960 "EHLO mail-ie0-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751370AbaLSNTR (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Dec 2014 08:19:17 -0500 Received: by mail-ie0-f180.google.com with SMTP id rp18so626478iec.25 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2014 05:19:17 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <54940B8C.5070801@neratec.com> References: <54940B8C.5070801@neratec.com> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 14:19:17 +0100 Message-ID: (sfid-20141219_141923_127108_8E3908A1) Subject: Re: DFS CAC time From: Helmut Schaa To: Zefir Kurtisi Cc: linux-wireless Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Zefir, On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Zefir Kurtisi wrote: > On 12/18/2014 05:21 PM, Helmut Schaa wrote: >> Hi, >> >> [...] >> >> So, every channel has a CAC time of 60 seconds. >> >> Checking version 1.7.2 of the ETSI regulation indicates that we might >> need some modifications to cfg80211: >> >> From [1] page 79: >> >> "NOTE 1: For channels whose nominal bandwidth falls completely or >> partly within the >> band 5 600 MHz to 5 650 MHz, the Channel Availability Check Time shall be >> 10 minutes. >> NOTE 2: For channels whose nominal bandwidth falls completely or >> partly within the >> band 5 600 MHz to 5 650 MHz, the Off-Channel CAC Time shall be within the >> range 1 hour to 24 hours." >> >> So, for these channels we should select a longer initial CAC time. >> >> Is anyone aware of this issue? >> >> Thanks, >> Helmut >> >> >> [1] http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/301800_301899/301893/01.07.02_20/en_301893v010702a.pdf >> -- > > Hello Helmut, > > just forget about those aka 'weather channels' that require a pracitcally > impossible to achieve radar detection probability rate (99.99% during CAC, see > table D.5). Hmm, ok :) Would it make sense to mark these somehow in the wireless-regdb in a special way? Thanks, Helmut