Editing Internet exchange point (section)

=== 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.