Editing Peering (section)

{{short description|Voluntary interconnection of administratively separate Internet networks}}
In [[computer networking]], '''peering''' is a voluntary interconnection of administratively separate [[Internet]] [[data network|networks]] for the purpose of exchanging traffic between the "down-stream" users of each network. Peering is [[settlement (finance)|settlement]]-free, also known as "bill-and-keep" or "sender keeps all", meaning that neither party pays the other in association with the exchange of traffic; instead, each derives and retains revenue from its own customers.

An agreement by two or more networks to peer is instantiated by a physical interconnection of the networks, an exchange of [[routing]] information through the [[Border Gateway Protocol]] (BGP) routing protocol, tacit agreement to norms of conduct and, in some extraordinarily rare cases (0.07%), a formalized contractual document.<ref name="PCH2011survey">{{cite web |url=https://www.pch.net/resources/Papers/peering-survey/PCH-Peering-Survey-2011.pdf |title=Survey of Characteristics of Internet Carrier Interconnection Agreements |first1=Bill |last1=Woodcock |first2=Vijay |last2=Adhikari |date=2011-05-02 |publisher=[[Packet Clearing House]] |access-date=2011-05-05}}</ref><ref name="PCH2016survey-1">{{cite web |url=https://www.pch.net/resources/Papers/peering-survey/PCH-Peering-Survey-2016/PCH-Peering-Survey-2016.pdf |title=Survey of Characteristics of Internet Carrier Interconnection Agreements |first1=Bill |last1=Woodcock |first2=Marco |last2=Frigino |date=2016-11-21 |publisher=[[Packet Clearing House]] |access-date=2021-05-28 |quote=Of the total analyzed agreements, 1,347 (0.07%) were formalized in written contracts. This is down from 0.49% in 2011. The remaining 1,934,166 (99.93%) were “handshake” agreements in which the parties agreed to informal or commonly understood terms without creating a written document.}}</ref>

In 0.02% of cases the word "peering" is used to describe situations where there is some settlement involved. Because these outliers can be viewed as creating ambiguity, the phrase "settlement-free peering" is sometimes used to explicitly denote normal cost-free peering.<ref name="PCH2016survey-2">{{cite web |url=https://www.pch.net/resources/Papers/peering-survey/PCH-Peering-Survey-2016/PCH-Peering-Survey-2016.pdf |title=Survey of Characteristics of Internet Carrier Interconnection Agreements |first1=Bill |last1=Woodcock |first2=Marco |last2=Frigino |date=2016-11-21 |publisher=[[Packet Clearing House]] |access-date=2021-05-28 |quote=Of the agreements we analyzed, 1,935,111 (99.98%) had symmetric terms, in which each party gave and received the same conditions as the other. Only 403 (0.02%) had asymmetric terms, in which the parties gave and received conditions with specifically defined differences, and these exceptions were down from 0.27% in 2011. Typical examples of asymmetric agreements are ones in which one of the parties compensates the other for routes that it would not otherwise receive (sometimes called “paid peering” or “on-net routes”), or in which one party is required to meet terms or requirements imposed by the other (“minimum peering requirements”), often concerning volume of traffic or number or geographic distribution of interconnection locations.}}</ref>