# Recommended MQTT to Cyphal Mappings

**URL:** <https://forum.opencyphal.org/t/recommended-mqtt-to-cyphal-mappings/2434>\
**Category:** Applications & Usage\
**Created:** [January 8, 2026, 11:35pm UTC](https://forum.opencyphal.org/t/recommended-mqtt-to-cyphal-mappings/2434 "2026-01-08T23:35:34Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pavel.kirienko](https://forum.opencyphal.org/user_avatar/forum.opencyphal.org/pavel.kirienko/32/9_2.png) [@pavel.kirienko](https://forum.opencyphal.org/u/pavel.kirienko)\
**Post date:** [January 10, 2026, 10:15am UTC](https://forum.opencyphal.org/t/recommended-mqtt-to-cyphal-mappings/2434/4 "2026-01-10T10:15:22Z")

</div>

I was referring to v1.1 specifically, where we do have named topics similar to conventional pubsub frameworks. There is a preview to play with here (currently it only supports Cyphal/UDP):

> **[GitHub - OpenCyphal-Garage/cy: Cyphal v1.1 in C: robust decentralized pub/sub...](https://github.com/OpenCyphal-Garage/cy)**
>
> Cyphal v1.1 in C: robust decentralized pub/sub with optional reliability and service discovery in a just couple thousand lines of code.

If the goal is to provide guidance for Cyphal v1.0 specifically, then my post does not apply indeed. We discussed a related topic a while back here: [Generalized mapping of Cyphal to transports](https://forum.opencyphal.org/t/generalized-mapping-of-cyphal-to-transports/1761), but then it probably doesn’t add much to your proposal.

> [@erik.rainey](#):
>
> We just have Versioned Message Types, which aren’t the same but can be (and are) repurposed into being that.

A much closer analogy is a subject rather than a data type, because the data type analogy only holds for fixed port-ID data types.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.opencyphal.org/t/recommended-mqtt-to-cyphal-mappings/2434)._