%, RF of ROBUST and VNS decreases. RF of FRP increases faster than those of ROBUST and VNS, due to which FRP is zero-tolerant to uncertainties; in other words, uncertainties of substrate links will affect all the incumbent requests mapped on those substrate links. In contrast, ROBUST and VNS are uncertainties tolerant algorithms, which reserve link resources beforehand in case of link uncertainties. The performance of ROBUST is slightly better than that of VNS, due to which VNS is a heuristic algorithm that provides near optimal solutions while ROBUST always provides optimal solutions. Comparing the robust RAN slicing algorithms, i.e. ROBUST and VNS, RF of ROBUST with 30% link uncertainty tolerance has the lowest failure rate. The reason is that 30% tolerance of link uncertainties equals our assumed maximum bandwidth perturbation of virtual and substrate links, and in this case, all failed requests are incurred by substrate node and link failures. In Figure 10.4a,b, we compare the average load of links requests (U) over time for FRP, ROBUST, and VNS under the high and medium uncertainty scenarios respectively. We notice that U L of FRP, ROBUST, and VNS in high uncertainty scenario are roughly 5% higher than the U L of FRP, ROBUST, and VNS in medium uncertainty scenario. More- over, we can see that U L of FRP, ROBUST, and VNS increases with time. In both scenarios, U L of ROBUST and VNS increase more rapidly than FRP. This is because ROBUST and VNS introduce redundancies while recovering against link perturbations. Specifically, VNS brings slightly higher load on links than ROBUST. The reason is that in order to enable VNS to perform fast recovery of requests, VNS just provides a near-optimal solution instead of the optimal solution as produced by ROBUST. In Figure 10.5a,b, we illustrate the relationship between failure rate of requests (RF) and average load of substrate links (UL) for ROBUST and VNS under high uncertainty scenario. In Figure 10.5a, we compare RF of ROBUST and VNS by fixing U L at 5%, 10%, 15%, an