Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Subject: Re: Correct radiotap header for 802.11ad
From:   Guy Harris <guy@alum.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4cf0c2a4a2d1cd92dff4f1a791d74523e446cf01.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date:   Fri, 20 Dec 2019 13:56:16 -0800
Cc:     "radiotap@netbsd.org" <radiotap@netbsd.org>,
        Simon Barber <simon@superduper.net>,
        Richard Sharpe <realrichardsharpe@gmail.com>,
        linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Maya Erez <merez@codeaurora.org>,
        wil6210@qti.qualcomm.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Message-Id: <AC268742-D34D-411A-A170-B807010E13E6@alum.mit.edu>
References: <CACyXjPzq-ePB1ux6wi_Rv3onPKXomcJcm15XJwA51u0E4W2txw@mail.gmail.com>
 <38F46E1D-1C4A-48DC-A906-9522006E8474@alum.mit.edu>
 <1606812C-649C-4C06-ABE0-AE2F4474BCD0@alum.mit.edu>
 <1440402013.3735.1.camel@sipsolutions.net>
 <CACyXjPwSZPV+U_=zQpDBpeBnhMntzEFhyJnBOw3-N8qPfyHc1A@mail.gmail.com>
 <55DE44EB.6080603@superduper.net>
 <126B842D-05EA-4510-BC9B-DB1A4AABEC12@alum.mit.edu>
 <1135A126-6A5A-4C84-A52D-13C0387609CC@alum.mit.edu>
 <1442507879.2821.9.camel@sipsolutions.net>
 <C5FF46C6-BDEE-41D8-B7E1-1EFFE9411DE3@alum.mit.edu>
 <4cf0c2a4a2d1cd92dff4f1a791d74523e446cf01.camel@sipsolutions.net>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Dec 11, 2019, at 12:32 AM, Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 2019-12-10 at 15:51 -0800, Guy Harris wrote:
>> On Sep 17, 2015, at 9:37 AM, Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
> 
> Reviving an old thread :-)

Yes - it came up with the Wireshark bug in question.

>> But a presumably-Linux system does appear to use it; see Wireshark bug
>> 
>> 	https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16272
>> 
>> For now, I'll throw a hack into Wireshark to treat a signal >= 60 GHz
>> as meaning 11ad, 
> 
> I don't think that's quite right - you'll need to do something like >=
> 56 GHz.

Yes - there's a macro in Wireshark to test whether a frequency is in the 11ad range; it was testing for frequencies between 57 and 66 GHz.  I changed the code to use that.

I also changed it to test for 57 to 71 GHz; apparently, some regulatory domains have added (US) or may add (Canada, EU) more frequencies to the range allowed.