Nick- or turning off NetWare. ;-)
This is an interesting thread and I have to admit over the last few years that v6, as you point out is just another thing, designed to fix a problem and will be adopted to solve it. I had a chance to give a presentation at RMv6TF this year and conversations with attendees and vendors cemented the reality of v6 as not just viable, but a necessary and mature technology.
On the flight back I was imagining a world where the v4 team had not made the decision to reduce their original suggestion of 128 bits, and what v4 would look like with three decades of maturity behind it. We wouldn't even think about it, it would just be the way of the world. But it didn't happen that way, and 95% of us have been sitting comfortably behind "enormous" 10.'s forever and see v6 as a solution to an internet problem that's someone else's fault. Adding to the reluctance, for most companies v6 can also be expensive (unless they're current in their hardware refresh cycles and have IPv6 admins on staff), and managers often have trouble demonstrating ROI from the investment. They don't get "big bang" functionality like other projects so they spend their budgets elsewhere.
IPv6 then is a sign of organizational maturity. When it happens it surprisingly arrives as a no-brainer solution, gets added to the network team's project list and (usually) involves little fanfare. And I think we all agree that low-fainfare IT projects are the best IT projects. We'll reach a tipping point with enterprises where it will happen in a wave, and years from now we'll look back on it and v4 will be another AppleTalk. And the world will be a better place.