 0,n e }}}. Theorem 9.1 Subset AQ-A is a QoS-AUS. Proof: To prove Theorem 9.1, we should prove the feasibility and QoS performance of AQ-A respectively. (1) feasibility: Let x,*** be the optimal solution x* of UE n to P2. We denote y as an |AQ-A |-dimensional vector with elements Yn' where yn for n E AQ-A. As x* is the optimal solution to P2, it is also a feasible solution. Moreover, An E AQ-A, we have in=0,dn = 0. Hence, it is easy to verify that y can satisfy all constraints in P1 when we use AQ-A to replace V. In other words, AQ-A is an AUS. (2) QoS performance: According to Definition 9.2, we need to prove that the achievable value of .,AQ-A (+++) is no greater than that of any other AUS H. Let us start from set AQ-A According to the definition of y, we have in=0,d= = 0 for all n E AQ-A, and thus .- For any other AUS H, let ,, and XH be the optimal solution of r, à, and x, respectively, and thus the minimum achievable value is () As H is an AUS, we have rn = 0, = 0 for all n E H, and thus **,d*,**} is the optimal solution to Therefore, according to the above proof of feasibility and QoS performance, we can con- clude that subset AQ-A is a QoS-AUS. According to Theorem 9.1, QoS-AC policy guarantees both QoS performance and feasi- bility. Moreover, this AC policy also guides network operators to re-allocate bandwidth in the NS reconfiguration phase thus to satisfy QoS of all the UEs in set V with the minimum bandwidth consumption. However, network slice reconfiguration is beyond the scope of this work. QoS-AC policy is focused on network QoS while the performance in terms of the number of admissible UEs cannot be guaranteed. In Section 9.1.3.2, we will design another AC scheme Num-AC to maximize the number of admissible UEs. 9 Access Control and Handoff Policy Design for RAN Slicing 9.1.3.2 Num-AC Mechanism In the proposed QoS-AC, we find that some UEs with only unsatisfied rate or delay requirement (i.e. = or dn > 0, = 0) should be rejected. This means that some unviolated constraints are deleted in P1, implyi