no one bothering to no enquiry as to why organisations are reluctant to go ipv6
there are some terrible privacy issues with IPv6, hackers will have a field day exfiltrating data, sys admins will struggle to identify (hard enough with ipv4) systems that shouldn't be doing bad things etc.
If IPv6 had embraced NAT at the start it would have gained much earlier adoption. While NAT is not needed in IPv6 some of us like the inherent security offered with NAT. I can hide tens of thousands of rfc 1918 (private IP's) IP's behind a handful of public IP's which are easy to look for, filter and monitor. with IPv6 Its possible & encouraged to use publicly addressable IP's internally. That way of thinking was seen as a huge drawback of ipv4 & nat was seen as a fudge to enable connectivity but had the extension of being a simple cheap no skill required way of securing systems especially domestic systems who's owners had no need to understand how it worked.
Embrace NAT, let the uninitiated hide behind a gateway, save ISP's costs/bandwidth from zombied customers machines etc etc etc.
The very real security shortcomings of IPv6 needs to be overcome before mass adoption, else we will all have to purchase expensive gateways with expensive security contracts to ensure our homes are secure from hackers & privacy invading internet sites.