Fair enough. What is there to configure on a Billion BiPAC 8800AXL? IPv6 seems like a waste of time to me, why can't we just stick with IPv4!
The main reason is that the IPv4 address pool is exhausted - the registries have handed out all the address blocks, so once an entity has used up all its allocated addresses, it either has to go to the marketplace to try to secure transfer of address space from others (which is only a short term solution) or deploy NAT and hand out private address space to customers (so-called Carrier Grade NAT). Some IPv4 protocols that work well through a local NAT (in your router) do not cope with two layers of NAT - router NAT on top of CG NAT.
CG NAT has been the norm on mobile networks for years, because there isn't the address space to hand out public IP addresses to all the mobile devices. We are beginning to see CG NAT on consumer broadband - Plusnet have run a trial, and Hyperoptic are now forcing many of their customers onto CG NAT unless they pay an extra monthly charge for a single static IPv4 address (presumably because, as a relatively late entrant, Hyperoptic have a relatively small IPv4 address pool).
There are other advantages to IPv6 than a larger addressing space. The larger address space means NAT isn't normally used, making firewall configuration more straightforward as you don't have to worry about internal <--> external address mapping (there are some IPv6 usage cases, such as failover, that use NPt - mapping a prefix to another prefix). Inefficient broadcasts have been done away with; IPv6's multicast handles all the situations that used broadcasts on IPv4. Routing tables are typically smaller than with IPv4 because the address space isn't sliced up into so many small blocks, making life easier for routing protocols and routers. Most devices can auto-configure on an IPv6 network if allowed to do so.
There is a degree of implementation pain with IPv6, especially when it comes to deploying it to home routers, but things have got better over time, in no small part thanks to work focusing on standards like TR-187
. The biggest problem at the moment is perceived lack of consumer demand; IPv6 deployment and especially technical support has a non-zero costs for ISPs, who have so far received relatively few requests for it.
However, the move to IPv6 is eventually unstoppable. IPv4 will become increasingly constraining as the Internet continues to grow, and once IPv6 service provision is mature, the way will be open to eliminate cost and complexity by starting the process of decommissioning IPv4 on the Internet.
If you want to ignore IPv6 for now, do so - you really aren't missing out on much. However, you cannot ignore IPv6 forever.