Talk:Network interface device

Rewrite

Ok, since some people do not want to try this, I'm just going to rewrite the top part and list the primary functions of a NIU per Westell\Hyperedge and Bellsouth, plus the FCC's defination. It'll need a copy edit when done, but it will have citations.Ozzy 98 (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, soon as I get home anyways, still at a motel. And please read: http://wholesale.att.com/reference_library/guides/tech_ref/TR-73569.pdf before making any more changes based on what you THINK an NIU is. I pasted links from the makers of NIUs and the users of NIUs both stating one of the primary functions is proving a loop without the use of a loopback plug. Once we get THIS part done then, we can actualy start adding the real tech info, like loopback codes used and the Layer-3 issues with some Hyperedge cards. Remember, our goal is to improve this page, so let's all work for this. Ozzy 98 (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

I tried to clean this page up a bit, but think I made it more of a mess since I do not really know wikiformatting (Nor do I care that much about learning it. I added the refrence to Bellsouth's "Functional Criteria for the DS1 Interface Connector". This is what Bellsouth requires on it's NIUs, and it pretty much is used by all LECs to. If it's not loopable, then it's hard to call it an NIU. Some of the newer citation needed were not needed; the refrence section covered them in it's defniation of an NIU, and since it was the Atis def used by the US Goverment, it's pretty much law. And to help shatter ANY doubts about an NIU being a loopable device, this is from the statsheet of a Westell NIU (One fo the biggest NIU makers):"Without Autoterm Plus, your NIU cannot be put into loopback in any of these events. The NIU cannot do what it is made for, requiring an on site call." http://www.westell.com/images/products/slimjack_3125.pdf As you can see, according to the biggest NIU maker, the point of the NIU is to allow remote testing of the line, so that an on-site call is not required. Now then, anyone want to fix my formatting mess? Ozzy 98 (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You made edits that make the article less readable and less verifiable, and took out my requests for citations without providing citations again. I'm going to revert the edits and try to improve the article. Please don't make edits unless they truly improve the quality of the article. For one thing, describing the NIU as a loopback device is totally confusing. Yes, it supposedly includes loopback capabilities, but that is not its main function. -- Schapel (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is one of the main functions, as the refrences FROM THE NIU MAKERS said, that you removed. I'm starting to believe you are not trying to improve this page but vandalize it. You keep adding in citation needed for thats that are proven in the external links, under defination of a NIU. This has gone beyond trying to improve the page, and seems almost personal on your part. Please, read the refrences given. One was from the maker of NIUs, and the other one was stating the requirments of NIUs, and showed EXACTLY how they were built. This page is an industry standard, and *EVERY* NIU out there follows this standard now. I added citations, but I DO NOT KNOW HOW TO CITATION PROPERLY. Hence, right above, I listed them for others to add, as the pages you linked me to recomended. I'm not sure why you are so die-hard aginst calling a NIU a loopback device, did you just completely ignore every link I posted? Or not read the statment above? Please just use the citations I listed above, and THE ONES YOU REMOVED, to improve the page, and stop trying to make NIUs into something they're not, so we will not require moderation on this page. Ozzy 98 (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

NI vs NIU

Is NIU commonly shortened to NI by service providers?

(Response) Yes, it is. Flagmichael 02:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Loopback

I still have doubts about the correctness of the statement about loopback testing. When I ordered a T1 connection from AT&T in 2007, they gave me a loopback plug to plug into my CSU. When that test failed, they had me plug it into the smartjack. Why would they ask me to do that if they could initiate a loopback test from the CO? We need a reliable source that truly states that, or that statement should be removed. Of course you can initiate a loopback test if you use a loopback plug; it is not necessarily a quality inherent in the smarkjack itself. -- Schapel (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The loopback test loops the front of the smartjack, the loopback plug tests through the smartjack, to make sure the jack is wired correctly, and is not defective itself. The loopback plug isn't a very good test too, cause it only tests half the pairs (There's 4 wires used, tip and ring on both send and recieve pairs). You use loopback plugs to test extended demarks (They use "biscut jacks" and not NIUs) a lot, but again, this isn't a good test cause you can have the pairs rolled, and really need something like a T-BERD unit. So most likely what happened, it tested good to the smartjack, and they wanted to test through the smartjack to make sure they wired it correctly in the back, or, what you're looking at was actualy a demarc extension they thought they might have wired wrong.

Course, this entire page needs reworked. I'm not 100% sure what is meant by the part about transmission protocols part.63.87.129.138 (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you plugged the loopback into your CSU, and it FAILED, then your CSU was bad. I think you might be mixed up on something, cause a CSU with a loopback plug in it should come up\up(Looped)63.87.129.138 (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)