Advertisement

A Simulation Study Comparing the Performance of Two RFID Protocols

  • Mamatha Nanjundaiah
  • Vipin Chaudhary
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4159)

Abstract

This paper presents a comparison of version 1.0 Protocol Specification for 900MHz Class 0 RFID Tag with that of Class-1 Generation 2 UHF RFID Protocol for Communications at 860 MHz – 960 MHz for large number of tags. Although the Generation 2 protocol has been released for Class 1, it is intended to be used by all classes of RFID tags. Using detailed simulation we compare their performance and security features. If security is a lower priority over speed in cases where one can be sure that the risk of presence of an eavesdropper is low, Class 0 draft protocol should be used as it provides a definite advantage over Generation 2 protocol.  In application areas where the risk of consumer identity/privacy theft is high (consumer goods area), Generation 2 provides the security that eliminates the vulnerability of the RFID EPC structure.

Keywords

Electronic Product Code Draft Protocol Supply Chain Industry Query Command Slot Counter 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Nanjundaiah, M., Chaudhary, V.: Improvement to the anticollision protocol specification for 900 MHz Class 0 Radio Frequency Identification Tag. In: Proceedings the First International Workshop on Ubiquitous Smart Worlds, pp. 616–620. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    EPC Radio-Frequency Identity Protocols Class-1 Generation-2 UHF RFID Protocol for Communications at 860 MHz - 960 MHz, EPCglobal Inc. (January 31, 2005), http://www.epcglobalinc.org
  3. 3.
    Draft Protocol Specification for a 900MHz Class 0 Radio Frequency Identification Tag, MIT Auto-ID Center (February 23, 2003), http://www.epcglobalinc.org
  4. 4.
    Hernandez, P., Sandoval, J.D., Puente, J.D., Perez, F.: Mathematical Model for a Multiread Anticollision Protocol. In: IEEE Pacific Rim Conference on Communications, Computers and Signal Processing, pp. 647–650 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vogt, H.: Multiple Object Identification with Passive RFID Tags. In: IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, pp. 6–9 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jacomet, M., Ehrsam, A., Gehrig, U.: Contactless Identification Device with Anticollision Algorithm. In: IEEE Conference on Circuits, Systems, Computers and Communications, pp. 269–273 (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Law, C., Lee, K., Siu, K.Y.: Efficient Memoryless Protocol for Tag Identification. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM International workshop on Discrete algorithms and methods for mobile computing and communications, pp. 75–84 (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhou, F., Jin, D., Huang, C., Hao, M.: Optimize the Power Consumption of Passive Electronic Tags for Anti-collision Schemes. In: ASIC Proceedings of 5th International Conference, pp. 1213–1217 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hush, R., Wood, C.D.R.: Analysis of Tree Algorithms for RFID Arbitration. In: Proceedings of International Symposium on Information Theory, p. 107 (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mamatha Nanjundaiah
    • 1
  • Vipin Chaudhary
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Scientific ComputingWayne State UniversityDetroit

Personalised recommendations