ISO 18000-6 Type B与Type C标准的分析与比较  

Analysis and Comparison of ISO/IEC18000-6 Type B and Type C Standard

作　　者：张予帅[1] 蒋泰[1] 苏平[1] 罗义学 肖煌 

机构地区：[1]桂林电子科技大学计算机与控制学院,广西桂林541004 [2]南宁市公安局交通警察支队,广西南宁530028

出　　处：《广西科学院学报》2009年第4期336-339,共4页Journal of Guangxi Academy of Sciences

基　　金：国家电子信息产业发展基金项目(信部运[2006]634号)资助

摘　　要：分析比较UHF频段ISO/IEC18000-6Type B与TypeC两种协议标准的链路编码、命令和防冲突机制的优缺点。TypeB采用的曼彻斯特编码是早期的编码标准,实现较为容易,但是编码效率较低;TypeC采用的PIE编码,在物理上实现容易,传输效率高。TypeB的所有命令位数都为8位,而TypeC的命令位数采用可变字长前缀编码,相比TypeB提高了传输效率。TypeB采用的自适应二进制树防冲突机制当等待识别的标签数量较多时,效率较低;TypeC采用的随机时隙防冲突机制具有算法简单,便于实现等优点,但是该机制的时隙是随机分配的,具有一定的不确定性。This paper highlights the analysis and comparison of link encoding,instruction and anti-collision mechanism of ISO/IEC 18000-6 Type B and Type C standard in UHF channel.Manchester coding which Type B uses is earlier encoding standards.This encoding achieves relatively easy but with a lower coding efficiency,PIE encoding which Type C uses has advantage of easy of physical realization and transmission of high efficiency.Commands of Type B are 8 bits,while commands of Type C use variable length prefix encoding which improves transmission efficiency. Adaptive binary tree anti-collision mechanism of Type B is low efficiency when identification tags are in large number. Random time slot anti-collision mechanism of Type C is a simple algorithm with easy realization,but the time slot of mechanism is random distribution and is uncertain.

关 键 词：射频识别 标准 协议 防冲突 

分 类 号：TP302.7[自动化与计算机技术—计算机系统结构]