Editing Internet exchange point (section)

==Operations==
[[File:DE-CIX GERMANY - Switch Rack (6218137120).jpg|thumb|A [[19-inch rack]] used for [[Network switch|switch]]es at the [[Deutscher Commercial Internet Exchange|DE-CIX]] in [[Frankfurt am Main|Frankfurt]], Germany]]

===Technical operations ===
A typical IXP consists of one or more [[network switch]]es, to which each of the participating ISPs connect. Prior to the existence of switches, IXPs typically employed [[fiber-optic inter-repeater link]] (FOIRL) hubs or [[Fiber Distributed Data Interface]] (FDDI) rings, migrating to [[Ethernet]] and FDDI switches as those became available in 1993 and 1994.

[[Asynchronous Transfer Mode]] (ATM) switches were briefly used at a few IXPs in the late 1990s, accounting for approximately 4% of the market at their peak, and there was an attempt by [[Stockholm]]-based IXP [[NetNod]] to use [[SRP/DPT]], but [[Ethernet]] has prevailed, accounting for more than 95% of all existing Internet exchange switch fabrics.  All Ethernet port speeds are to be found at modern IXPs, ranging from 10 [[Megabit|Mb]]/second ports in use in small developing-country IXPs, to ganged 10 [[Gigabit|Gb]]/second ports in major centers like Seoul, New York, London, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, and Palo Alto. Ports with 100 Gb/second are available, for example, at the AMS-IX in Amsterdam and at the DE-CIX in Frankfurt.{{Citation needed|date=August 2021}}

[[File:AMS-IX optical patch panel.jpg|thumb|An [[optical fiber]] [[patch panel]] at the [[Amsterdam Internet Exchange]]]]

=== Business operations ===
The principal business and governance models for IXPs include:<ref name=oecd-market-developments />
* [[Nonprofit organization|Not-for-profit]] [[Trade association|association]] (usually of the participating [[Internet service provider|ISPs]])
* [[Network-neutral data center|Operator-neutral]] for-profit company (usually the operator of a [[Data center|datacenter]] hosting the IXP)
* [[University]]
* [[Government agency]] (often the [[List of ministries of communications|communications ministry]] or [[List of telecommunications regulatory bodies|regulator]], at national scale, or [[Municipality|municipal government]], at local scale)
* [[Voluntary_association#Legal_status|Unincorporated informal association]] of networks (defined by an open-ended multi-party contract, without independent legal existence)

The technical and business logistics of traffic exchange between ISPs is governed by bilateral or multilateral [[peering]] agreements. Under such agreements, traffic is exchanged without compensation.<ref name="pch-peering-survey-2016">{{cite web |last1=Woodcock |first1=Bill |last2=Frigino |first2=Marco |title=2016 Survey of Internet Carrier Interconnection Agreements |url=https://www.pch.net/resources/Papers/peering-survey/PCH-Peering-Survey-2016/PCH-Peering-Survey-2016.pdf |publisher=Packet Clearing House |date=21 November 2016 |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. In the prevailing symmetric relationship, the parties to the agreement simply exchange customer routes with each other, without settlements or other requirements. |access-date=11 November 2021 |archive-date=7 July 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210707084312/https://www.pch.net/resources/Papers/peering-survey/PCH-Peering-Survey-2016/PCH-Peering-Survey-2016.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> When an IXP incurs operating costs, they are typically shared among all of its participants.

At the more expensive exchanges, participants pay a monthly or annual fee, usually determined by the speed of the port or ports which they are using. Fees based on the volume of traffic are less common because they provide a counterincentive to the growth of the exchange. Some exchanges charge a setup fee to offset the costs of the switch port and any media adaptors ([[gigabit interface converter]]s, [[small form-factor pluggable transceiver]]s, [[XFP transceiver]]s, [[XENPAK]]s, etc.) that the new participant requires.