Are IPv4 more intuitively hard to track than IPv6?

Question

I understand that it is easier for a human to intuitively figure out the alleged whereabouts of a machine if that machin's IP address is IPv6, rather than if its IPv4:

For example, since I configured my smartphone Access Point Name (APN) of the type APN protocol from including the value IPv4 to including the value IPv4/IPv6, generally all different addresses I got after restarting my smartphone about 10 times, started with:

2001:44c8:

That seems to me to indicate that the alleged whereabouts of my machine in Bangkok, Thailand (by 44c8), unless its a proxy.

My problem

I have started using IPv6 in the year 2020 and until that year I came across a few IPv4 addresses in my life:
While all of them IPv4 addresses seemed to me intuitively radically different one from another, and although I never deepened to learn how to calculate alleged whereabouts from an IPv4 addresses, I am quite confident that they won't intuitively expose the alleged whereabouts of a machine so easily as with IPv6 addresses (as with 44c8 for example), with which an hacker only needs to remember that 44c8 represents Bangkok) whether it is or it isn't a proxy hiding the actual whereabouts of a machine.

Notes

• I use the word allegedly because as most here know better than me, a proxy can bias the actual whereabouts of a machine

• Of course there is calculation automation for both IP address versions but I aim to ask only about intuitive memorization ("oh, that's probably Bangkok" ; "oh, that's probably Paris" ; "oh, yes I was right" ; "oh, yes I was right").

MY question

Are IPv4 more intuitively hard to track than IPv6?
Or, my question is sorely based on some wrong assumption and everything I wrote here is nonsense?

Answer 1

An IP address does not inherently represent a geographic location. An IP address space is owned by a company and this company is using an IP address for a specific purpose which is often tied to a geographic location - and this is true for both IPv4 and IPv6. This makes it possible to create mappings between IP addresses and geographic locations, i.e. GeoIP databases. Note that these databases are not fully correct in all cases.

From this there is no real difference between tracking a public IPv4 and public IPv6 address. But, many providers don't actually give out public IPv4 addresses to their customers since there are not enough IPv4 addresses for this. Instead they get a private IPv4 address and NAT is used somewhere at the ISP to map many private IPv4 to a single public IPv4. What the customer sees on his phone is only the private IPv4. This has no clear location associated since multiple systems world-wide can use the same private IP at the same time, it is not owned by anybody but is not routeable on the internet either. The endpoint of the connection though sees the public IPv4 which has a location associated in the GeoIP database.

In mixed IPv4/IPv6 scenarios the IPv6 address is often a public one even if the IPv4 is not. So it might be in theory possible to have a more granular location for this address. But I doubt that this actually happens in practice: these IPv6 addresses are not specific for a customer but are dynamically drawn from a large pool of IPv6 addresses owned by the ISP. Thus one can only associate a rough location with it, similar to the rough location of the IPv4 address. In other words: there is no real difference in getting the location here too.