I was going to ask the same thing, since even for settlement free peering between large content providers and eyeball networks there are written agreements in place. I would have no clue on the volume percentage but it's not going to be near 99%.
Phil From: Livingood, Jason Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 11:41 AM To: North American Operators' Group Subject: re: PCH Peering Paper How does it look when you examine it by not the count of sessions or links but by the volume of overall data? I wonder if it may change a little like 50% of the volume of traffic is covered by a handshake. (I made 50% up - could be any percentage.) Jason PS - My email address has changed and I’m trying to send a 3rd time. Apologies if they all suddenly post to the list as duplicates! :-) >On 2/10/16, 6:34 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Patrick W. Gilmore" ><nanog-boun...@nanog.org on behalf of patr...@ianai.net> wrote: > >>I quoted a PCH peering paper at the Peering Track. (Not violating rules, >>talking about myself.) >> >>The paper is: >> https://www.pch.net/resources/Papers/peering-survey/PCH-Peering-Survey-2 >>0 >>11.pdf >> >>I said ³99.97%² of all peering sessions have nothing behind them more >>than a ³handshake² or an email. It seems I was in error. Mea Culpa. >> >>The number in the paper, on page one is, 99.52%. >> >>Hopefully everyone will read the paper, and perhaps help create better >>data. >> >>-- >>TTFN, >>patrick >> >> >
