<p dir="ltr">Ok. I was thinking about the apparent preference that the previous algorithm appeared to have for channels at the band edge, would that not also be a consideration in 5 as well<br>
-- or did I miss something? :-)</p>
<p dir="ltr">Thanks,</p>
<p dir="ltr">Jeremy D. Ward, CWNE<br>
(954) 661-4965</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Feb 8, 2015 6:14 AM, "Jouni Malinen" <<a href="mailto:j@w1.fi">j@w1.fi</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Sun, Feb 08, 2015 at 04:08:01AM -0500, Jeremy Ward wrote:<br>
> Quick question: does this weighted logic need to be applied to 5GHz ACS as<br>
> well, or is there a different methodology at play here due to DFS<br>
> requirements in certain portions of the band, regulatory domain dependent?<br>
<br>
The case that was discussed here was specific to 2.4 GHz band, i.e., the<br>
involved code path was already adding the adjacent channels only for<br>
that band. I don't think regulatory requirements would change this on 5<br>
GHz; there just aren't overlapping channels defined in a way that would<br>
need to care too much about adjacent channels in this ACS algorithm.<br>
<br>
--<br>
Jouni Malinen PGP id EFC895FA<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
HostAP mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:HostAP@lists.shmoo.com">HostAP@lists.shmoo.com</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.shmoo.com/mailman/listinfo/hostap" target="_blank">http://lists.shmoo.com/mailman/listinfo/hostap</a><br>
</blockquote></div>