Re: So, which IEEE-Frequency mappings should we be all using?
Which vendors are you talking about. Are you planing to add support for any of them. We have a UHF wifi pilot project and was thinking of doing a frequency down convert to UHF. Johann On Monday 22 July 2013 10:35:27 Adrian Chadd wrote: Well, the UHF stuff is available now and vendors are making cards for them. I'm happy just mapping them to 2.4GHz channels for now but it severely restricts the channels (ie, spacing/width) we can use in that range. adrian On 22 July 2013 07:40, Johannes Berg johan...@sipsolutions.net wrote: On Wed, 2013-07-17 at 10:42 -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote: * 420MHz * 700MHz * 900MHz (which we already have, due to history); * 3.6GHz * 4.9GHz 3.6 should have been defined in the spec recently, 4.9 surely is defined already (though the whole stack will have to support the dot11ChannelStartingFactor) The others are kinda non-standard extensions, and you probably won't even be able to properly support them since they're kinda pretend-handled like 2.4 GHz. johannes ___ freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-wireless To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-wireless-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-wireless To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-wireless-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: So, which IEEE-Frequency mappings should we be all using?
Hi, Specifically - Xagyl Communications modules for their UHF designs. The 420MHz cards work fine in FreeBSD, they just show up as 2GHz NICs. -adrian On 24 July 2013 00:17, Johann Hugo jh...@meraka.csir.co.za wrote: Which vendors are you talking about. Are you planing to add support for any of them. We have a UHF wifi pilot project and was thinking of doing a frequency down convert to UHF. Johann On Monday 22 July 2013 10:35:27 Adrian Chadd wrote: Well, the UHF stuff is available now and vendors are making cards for them. I'm happy just mapping them to 2.4GHz channels for now but it severely restricts the channels (ie, spacing/width) we can use in that range. adrian On 22 July 2013 07:40, Johannes Berg johan...@sipsolutions.net wrote: On Wed, 2013-07-17 at 10:42 -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote: * 420MHz * 700MHz * 900MHz (which we already have, due to history); * 3.6GHz * 4.9GHz 3.6 should have been defined in the spec recently, 4.9 surely is defined already (though the whole stack will have to support the dot11ChannelStartingFactor) The others are kinda non-standard extensions, and you probably won't even be able to properly support them since they're kinda pretend-handled like 2.4 GHz. johannes ___ freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-wireless To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-wireless-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-wireless To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-wireless-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: So, which IEEE-Frequency mappings should we be all using?
On Wed, 2013-07-17 at 10:42 -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote: * 420MHz * 700MHz * 900MHz (which we already have, due to history); * 3.6GHz * 4.9GHz 3.6 should have been defined in the spec recently, 4.9 surely is defined already (though the whole stack will have to support the dot11ChannelStartingFactor) The others are kinda non-standard extensions, and you probably won't even be able to properly support them since they're kinda pretend-handled like 2.4 GHz. johannes ___ freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-wireless To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-wireless-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: So, which IEEE-Frequency mappings should we be all using?
Well, the UHF stuff is available now and vendors are making cards for them. I'm happy just mapping them to 2.4GHz channels for now but it severely restricts the channels (ie, spacing/width) we can use in that range. adrian On 22 July 2013 07:40, Johannes Berg johan...@sipsolutions.net wrote: On Wed, 2013-07-17 at 10:42 -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote: * 420MHz * 700MHz * 900MHz (which we already have, due to history); * 3.6GHz * 4.9GHz 3.6 should have been defined in the spec recently, 4.9 surely is defined already (though the whole stack will have to support the dot11ChannelStartingFactor) The others are kinda non-standard extensions, and you probably won't even be able to properly support them since they're kinda pretend-handled like 2.4 GHz. johannes ___ freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-wireless To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-wireless-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
