I think it'll gain more use once major ISPs begin to support it. That'll probably happen as they begin to run low on v4 addresses, as most ISPs are only given small ranges of addresses to use.

This is going to turn into another Y2K, but bigger. IPv6 is not just a different address space.
* The IP Packet structure changes;
* The DNS and DHCP systems must be updated;
* Broadcast working is replaced by multicast;
* Addresses indicate Interfaces, not nodes;
* An interface has several addresses (link local, global aggregatable, etc)
And that's just a start. When people finally realise just what is staring them in the face, there will be a serious reality check, because, whereas with Y2K, it *might* be a problem, and many devices were known to be Y2K ready already, this baby will hit *everything*, and its not simply a node-by-node issue, its a *systems* issue.

And yes, people have been worrying about this since the early '90s, and it never happened, but now its getting close, and the inevitable will occur.

Even though public IPs will be switched over to ipv6, perhaps ipv4 will be used in the private domain, mainly NAT routers? Having a router is a pretty good way of being secure, provided of course the router is configured correctly, so thats perhaps one area where ipv4 will still be used for many more years to come, since perhaps there is not really any point to use ipv6 private addresses, since anyone who has a router has a private ip starting at 192.x.x. or 10.x.x or whatever.

I guess the only other issue with that is, how will ipv6 work with NAT routers?

Sorry Jeebizz, you're missing the point! One of the reasons for IPv6 is to get rid of NAT. There are a couple of very good reasons for that:
* Not all applications work with NAT. Think about what happens when an aplication embeds source IP address information in the data field of a packet, then that packet has its header re-written when it transits a NAT boundary;
* NAT is NOT a security mechanism. Anyone who still thinks it is needs to consider why so many hacking exploits work on devices behind a NAT boundary. Security is built up on numerous layers of selctive blocking, whereas the philosophy of NAT is selective transmission;
* NAT is a resource drain (on the routers performing it)

Face it guys, IPv4 was built for a purpose like the model T Ford was built for a purpose. It did a good job in its day, and lead the way to something better (you probably wouldn't see cars like BMWs today, if it were not for the lessons learnt with the Model T). But its day is over! There is no way you would try to use model Ts on modern freeways. At the risk of repeating myself ( ) IPv6 is the way forward, IPv4 is terminally strangling the Internet. Don't be a bunch of Luddites and try to hold back progress, IPv6 is BETTER, learn to adopt it, not defend yourseves from it!

Huh. I didn't know that v6 was getting rid of NAT. I don't know if I like that.

I would disagree that NAT isn't a security mechanism. Although it isn't very secure, it does help by blocking most direct connections to computers that don't have ports forwarded. This is technically the job of a firewall, but in most home routers, NAT and a firewall are bundled together. NAT adds a small bit of security through obscurity, which is better than nothing in my opinion.