 assume that the maximum value of substrate link pertur- bation (i.e. by is 30% of the nominal value by We can adjust the tolerance of virtual link and substrate link uncertainties of ROBUST by tuning the by and bs at the same time from 10% to 30% of the nominal value of by and bs respectively. In other words, if we need ROBUST to tolerate at most 10% bandwidth uncertainties of virtual and substrate links, by and bs are set to 10%by and 10%bs respectively at the same time. If by and bs exceed 10% of their nominal values, the remapping results of requests solved by ROBUST become invalid. In contrast, FRP cannot tolerate any perturbations on bandwidth of substrate and virtual links. 10.4 Numerical Results 10.4.3 Results In Figure 10.3a,b, we compare the failure rate of requests (RF) over time for FRP, ROBUST, and VNS under the high and medium uncertainty scenarios respectively. The tolerance of link uncertainties (including both virtual and substrate links) can be adjusted from 10% to 30%. We notice that in high uncertainty scenario, RF of FRP, ROBUST, and VNS are roughly three times higher than the corresponding RF of FRP, ROBUST, and VNS in ROBUST with 10% tolerance ROBUST with 30% tolerance VNS with 10% tolerance VNS with 30% tolerance Simulation time (min) ROBUST with 10% tolerance ROBUST with 30% tolerance VNS with 10% tolerance VNS with 30% tolerance Simulation time (min) Figure 10.3 Failure rate of requests over time. (a) Medium uncertainty scenario and (b) high uncertainty scenario. 10 Robust RAN Slicing medium uncertainty scenario. Moreover, we can observe that in both scenarios, RF of FRP, ROBUST, and VNS rise over time due to the increasing failures of substrate nodes and links as well as the increasing uncertainties of links (including both substrate and virtual links). We can also observe that in both scenarios, RF of FRP is higher than that of ROBUST and VNS due to a lack of redundant bandwidth to protect requests from link uncertainties. By adjusting the tolerance of link uncertainties from 10% to 30