On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, ext John W. Linville wrote: > 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... :-) Well, I'd rather trust a governement regulated network than my neighbour's AP ;-) In fact, some phones set their 802.11 regulatory domain based on the information they received from a somehow government regulated network, e.g. a GSM one.
Cheers, Samuel. - 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
