Advertisement

A Lower Bound on the Average Identification Time in a Passive RFID System

  • Nikita StepanovEmail author
  • Nikolay Matveev
  • Olga Galinina
  • Andrey Turlikov
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11118)

Abstract

One of the most well-known standards for radio frequency identification (RFID), the standard ISO 18000-6C, collects the requirements for RFID readers and tags and regulates respective communication protocols. In particular, the standard introduces the so-called Q-algorithm resolving conflicts in the channel (which occur when several RFID tags respond simultaneously). As of today, a vast amount of existing literature addresses various modifications of the Q-algorithm; however, none of them is known to significantly reduce the average identification time (i.e., the time to identify all proximate tags). In this work, we derive a lower bound for the average identification time in an RFID system. Furthermore, we demonstrate that in case of an error-free channel, the performance of the legacy Q-algorithm is reasonably close to the proposed lower bound; however, for the error-prone environment, this gap may substantially increase, thereby indicating the need for new identification algorithms.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The publication has been prepared with the support of the “RUDN University Program 5-100.” The work of N. Stepanov, N. Matveev, and A. Turlikov is supported by scientific project No. 8.8540.2017/8.9 “Development of data transmission algorithms in IoT systems with constraints on the devices complexity.”

References

  1. 1.
    Arjona, L., Landaluce, H., Perallos, A., Lopez-Garcia, P., Cmiljanic, N.: Analysis of RFID anti-collision protocols based on the standard EPCglobal Class-1 Generation-2. In: Proceedings of 21th European Wireless Conference on European Wireless 2015, pp. 1–6. VDE (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Global, EPC.: EPC radio-frequency identity protocols class-1 generation-2 UHF RFID protocol for communications at 860 MHz–960 MHz. Version 1, 23 (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Instruments, Texas: TI UHF Gen2 Protocol Reference GuideGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kamrani, A.: Design and Development of a State Transition Table for the EPC global UHF Class 1 Gen2 RFID standard. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pittsburgh (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Namboodiri, V., DeSilva, M., Deegala, K., Ramamoorthy, S.: An extensive study of slotted ALOHA-based RFID anti-collision protocols. Comput. Commun. 35(16), 1955–1966 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ometov, A., et al.: Secure and connected wearable intelligence for content delivery at a mass event: a case study. J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 6(2), 5 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Prudanov, A., et al.: A trial of yoking-proof protocol in RFID-based smart-home environment. In: Vishnevskiy, V.M., Samouylov, K.E., Kozyrev, D.V. (eds.) DCCN 2016. CCIS, vol. 678, pp. 25–34. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51917-3_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Uysal, I., Khanna, N.: Q-frame-collision-counter: a novel and dynamic approach to RFID Gen 2’s Q algorithm. In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on RFID Technology and Applications (RFID-TA), pp. 120–125. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zheng, F., Kaiser, T.: Adaptive ALOHA anti-collision algorithms for RFID systems. EURASIP J. Embed. Syst. 2016(1), 7 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State University of Aerospace InstrumentationSaint-PetersburgRussia
  2. 2.Tampere University of TechnologyTampereFinland
  3. 3.Peoples Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University)MoscowRussian Federation

Personalised recommendations