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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
