Andrej Butok

Guess, you are right: New version of the send function: ``` /************************************************************************ * Write callback ************************************************************************/ static int _fnet_tls_mbedtls_send(void *ctx, unsigned char const *buf, size_t len) { int result; fnet_service_mutex_lock();...

I suggest to update to the latest version of FNET, where done many DNS-related changes. After, try again.

I do not have the Eth boards at home-ofice now. But you can debug the issue and detect the corner case. I have feeling, that it has reached the limit...

So the third DNS server response contains unexpected CNAME (first 2 are ok). We get table.db6prdstr07a.store.core.windows.net but we are expecting prax47.table.core.windows.net So, what reaction should be?

The behavior is correct, as we should return rr-records we have requested. But if you will find a non correspondence with a RFC, please inform us.

Yes, please open a discussion.

Thank you, will review, and apply (if it is correct).

Hi @Hoohaha, could you look at this LPCXpressp55S36 RevD1 issue.