Peering problem with NSP

[mharrop () interlog com (Matt Harrop)]

        In a few months, the network I operate is going to become
multi-homed.  I've just ordered the T1 from SprintLink and I know that
they'll have no problem with BGP4 peering, or with the fact that I'll be
multi-homed.  My problem is with my existing NSP; fONOROLA.  When I
informed that that I would be going multi-homed, and asked them about
peering this was their answer:

> Due to our high level of interconnectivity, we carry over 6k routes on our
> backbone. Not all will be available to you. We can only assure you that direct
> connect routes will be offered, namely AS2493 & AS812. Transit ASes cannot be
> provided to you at this time on a guarenteed basis.  If you use us as
> default, this is not a problem, but I suspect you will not. We have direct
> connectivity to CA*net, Rogers, UUNET, WorldLinx, MCI, ANS, and
> cannot, at this time, ensure that all routes land on you. This kind of
> routing transit service is not really intended as our usual service
> offering, and it has a strong impact on our backbone design.

Is this in any way reasonable?  fONOROLA's primary connections to the rest
of the world are MCI and ANS.  If they can't provide transit to MCI and
ANS, they are essentialy useless to me.  Of perticular interest to me is
their last statement.  Would this actualy have a "strong impact" on their
backbone?

I can't think of any technical reason that they would be taking this
position with me.  However I'm not a routeing expert, and that's why I'm
posting to this list.  At this point I'm assuming that their possition is
an administrative one, but before I start butting heads with their
management, I want to be sure of the technical issues.

Thanks in advance,
Matt Harrop

--
Matt Harrop                                       mharrop () interlog com
InterLog Internet Services   voice (416) 975-2655   fax (416) 975-9639