From owner-freebsd-questions  Wed Apr  2 19:10:09 1997
Return-Path: <owner-questions>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA21836
          for questions-outgoing; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 19:10:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from news.cioe.com (cioeserv.cioe.com [204.120.165.34])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA21830;
          Wed, 2 Apr 1997 19:10:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from steve@localhost) by news.cioe.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) id WAA22497; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 22:10:27 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 22:10:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Steven Ames <steve@news.cioe.com>
Message-Id: <199704030310.WAA22497@news.cioe.com>
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: www.edns.com
Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


Has anyone looked at www.edns.com? They offer a secondary set of
top level domain servers that house a LOT more TLDs. Their documentation
suggests replacing the standard InterNIC cache file with theirs, but I
find that just adding a second line for

cache	.	named.edns

works just as well and gives me the added security that if they stop
working I still have all the standard TLDs at my disposal.

I only ask this question here because I wondered if FreeBSD intends
to add their root servers to the standard cache file distributed
with FreeBSD. It'd sure be a shot in the arm for their project...

Anyone got the pros/cons on this?

					-Steve