Well that is going to be a headache using IPv4
Thus far, especially in Canada, companies are dragging their feet implementing IPv6. Witness this unfortunate thread where:
1) My ISP has not and perhaps cannot implement IPv6
2) It would appear that my ISP and others besides do not realize there is a problem.
I want to keep this simple: IPv4 does not have a large enough address space to dish out IP addresses to 4.5 billion devices.
I do not want to go into it, but anyone with reasonable knowledge of this knows that existing 'solutions' are temporary kludges that lead to nasty stuff like walled gardens, broken security, compromised privacy, network congestion and relay delays, etc. If IPv4 and its kludges could somehow be OK, nobody would have even tried to embrace a disastrous solution like IPv6. It is hard, BTW to mount a defence of IPv6. The marketplace has clearly spoken that despite a clear need and a 15 year implementation window, IPv6 was so poor a solution that it has not been entirely implemented.
We have used horrendous hacks like NAT for so long that people have begun to think they aren't hacks. In fact, we have effectively run out of IPv4 addresses for any practical purpose.
IPv6 is just an absolutely awful solution to a problem the designers did not properly understand. Had it been the correct incremental expansion to IPv4, we would all be in a much larger address space already.
Here is something awful to contemplate: Authoritarian types such as law enforcement people do not like the fact that IPv4 is much easier to trace than IPv6. What is a problem in IPv4 is a 'feature' for them. This may not have actively interfered with roll-out of IPv6, but it sure did not help.
So much of this and similar stuff is such a wacky mess that it is hard to know where to start fixing it. Whatever the case, we should all demand better.