Bruno Garcia

Force-pushed addressing https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26969#discussion_r1230317439

re-ACK f5e985b4b5fcaf6b6341156b00725e8f32373ac4

> Would it make sense to instead offer this feature as an extension of the banning functionality (through setban / listbanned RPCs). That way it'd be runtime-configurable, get expiration, and...

@sipa, adding it to the `ban` stuff would not work for only `inbound` connections I guess. If I set a ban based on AS, maybe all my connections with them...

> Why would you only want to avoid inbound? An example: an attacker is using AWS to create multiple nodes and connect with me, I want to avoid it. However,...

Closing it for now. I agree on moving it to `ban`, will work on it.

@stickies-v > Wouldn't a std::optional approach make more sense here? Given my experience in #26078, I'm not sure about using `std::optional` here. At some point, I'd have to check if...

> I think the main benefit of doing them all together is to ensure they all adhere to the same consistent interface. From a review point of view, that's most...

Thanks @stickies-v for your valuable review, just addressed your suggestions! Ready for review!

> Looks like the first commit still uses the old naming scheme and probably should be adapted (s/vIP/addresses/)? Done, force-pushed addressing it!