{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022325581395348838, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.481927710843373, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Alternatives of Signalling Channel Allocation in Wireless ATM Networks

A comparison of Signalling Channel Allocation schemes in wireless ATM networks is presented. A unique signalling path between mobile terminals (MTs) and the control function (CF) is necessary for the exchange of call control and mobility control information. The signalling path has to be maintained dynamically in the case of new registration and handover, or released if the physical connection is broken. To avoid conflicts in assignment, three basic allocation schemes are possible: Metasignalling, Multiplexing, and Translation. Metasignalling uses a resolution phase to assign a unique Signalling Virtual Channel (SVC) between MT and CF. Multiplexing and Translation support the default SVC as defined in ITU-T and ATMF at the wireless interface. Both convert the default SVC from the wireless interface into unique SVCIs by translation, or by multiplexing into distinguishable messages. All mechanisms result in a trade-off in complexity in various network elements, timing, and interoperability.