TPS Changes on A2P SMS Routes: What Can Be Confirmed
The scope of a TPS limit depends on the service and agreement. The CRC methodology provides a specific regulatory example, but it does not establish universal limits for A2P SMS routes.
TPS Is Not Necessarily a Universal Limit
TPS usually means transactions per second, but the available material does not establish a universal threshold that applies to all A2P SMS connections or routes. A limit should be understood within the specific service or framework that defines it.
Colombia’s Communications Regulation Commission (CRC) describes a baseline TPS value configured for a specific access relationship. In that framework, traffic is evaluated against that value. The methodology should not automatically be applied to other agreements or A2P SMS routes.
- Confirm with the provider which limit, if any, applies to the specific service.
- Do not interpret a value defined for one access relationship as a universal limit.
- Distinguish between parameters confirmed by the provider and those not established by the available evidence.
Sustained Capacity, Bursts, Concurrency, and Recovery
The supplied evidence does not establish universal figures for sustained capacity, permitted bursts, concurrency, or recovery policies on A2P SMS routes. These parameters should be confirmed with the provider for each service.
The CRC reference concerns a specific regulatory methodology for access relationships in Colombia; it does not provide general operating limits for all A2P SMS connections or routes.
- Ask the provider to define the scope of each parameter that applies to the service.
- Do not infer sustained capacity or burst tolerance from an isolated TPS value.
- Do not assume that the recovery policy for one connection applies to another.
What the Specific CRC Methodology Shows
Under the framework described by the CRC, traffic is evaluated periodically and in coordination: the assessment takes place monthly, with information exchanged between the parties in advance. Normal load is determined using the sixth-highest monthly peak, rather than instantaneous peaks or simple averages.
The document explains that this method aims to exclude atypical events, isolated bursts, and transient behavior so that recurring traffic is represented in its sizing methodology. This observation applies exclusively to that regulatory framework and is not an operating rule for A2P SMS routes.
- The methodology applies to a specific access relationship.
- The assessment described is monthly and includes prior information exchange between the parties.
- The sixth-highest monthly peak is part of this framework; it is not a universal criterion for other services.
What Cannot Be Determined from the Available Evidence
The supplied evidence does not establish how SMPP systems technically respond to exceeding a TPS limit. Nor does it provide a basis for procedures to design controlled tests, interpret latency or queue metrics, diagnose the limiting layer, or define stop and rollback criteria.
These issues should therefore not be presented as technically supported conclusions here. Service-specific conditions should be confirmed with the provider; the CRC methodology only supports a description of the regulatory framework outlined above.
- No universal figures for TPS, sustained capacity, bursts, concurrency, or recovery are supported here.
- There is insufficient evidence to attribute rejections, timeouts, latency, or queue buildup to a specific cause.
- The available material does not support universal technical acceptance, stop, or rollback thresholds.
Keep the Scope of Any Comparison Clear
A specific regulatory methodology can illustrate that the meaning of TPS depends on context, but it does not show how an A2P SMS route will perform. Before applying any limit to a service, consult the terms that apply to that provider and connection.
When comparing data or criteria from different services, identify their source and scope. Do not present the CRC method as validation of an A2P SMS route’s capacity, performance, or delivery.
- Attribute regulatory references to the specific framework they describe.
- Do not extrapolate criteria for an access relationship to A2P SMS routes.
- Separate what the CRC document states from the parameters each provider must define.
Frequently asked questions
Does the TPS value specified for a CRC access relationship apply to all A2P SMS routes?
No. The document describes a methodology for a specific access relationship in Colombia. It does not establish a universal limit for A2P SMS routes.
Are there universal figures for sustained capacity, bursts, or concurrency on A2P SMS routes?
The available evidence does not establish universal figures for these parameters. They should be confirmed with the provider of the specific service.
How does the methodology described by the CRC evaluate traffic?
In that framework, the assessment is monthly and coordinated, with information exchanged between the parties in advance. Normal load is determined using the sixth-highest monthly peak; this is not a general rule for A2P SMS routes.
Does the available evidence allow SMPP responses to excess TPS or stop criteria to be defined?
No. The supplied material does not provide a technical basis for those procedures. They should not be presented as verified recommendations based on this evidence.
Does the CRC methodology demonstrate the performance of an A2P SMS route?
No. It concerns a specific regulatory framework and does not validate the capacity, performance, or delivery of an A2P SMS route.
Sources consulted
- Respuesta a comentarios sobre esquemas de remuneración mayorista móvilComisión de Regulación de Comunicaciones (CRC), Colombia
- SMPP v3.4 SpecificationSMPP Developers Forum