TABLE OF CONTENTS The preferred approach to framing an overload control standard is that it should, as a minimum, completely specify the overload control's behaviour. That is, the standard should pin down the control's required behaviour as discussed in section 7.5, and possibly including some of the preferred implementation techniques discussed in section 7.6.
Two key benefits flow from this approach:
the control can be implemented in any way a node supplier wishes provided only that it meets the requirements on behaviour;
network operators are assured that the behaviour of a compliant implementation of the overload control will be acceptable to them.
Such an approach is now beginning to find favour in national and international standards organisations. Recent examples include the following.
UK adaptive ISUP ACC [2]
This issue of the UK ISUP standard has text specifying the required behaviour of adaptive automatic congestion control (ACC) in order to protect a node from call surges coming from neighbouring nodes across ISUP routes. The text follows the approach described in section 7.5.
UK adaptive BICC ACC [17]
The latest UK draft BICC standard has text specifying the required behaviour of adaptive ACC in order to protect nodes providing the call service function (CSF) from calling rate surges. The text closely follows the approach described in section 7.5.
ATM Signalling Congestion Control [3]
This new overload control standard is designed to protect ATM nodes from SVC or soft-PVC calling rate surges. When an originating...
